A4-1250 vs Celeron 847

CPU

GPU

A4-1250

2 Cores2 Thrd8 WWMax: 1 GHz2013

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Celeron 847

2 Cores2 Thrd17 WWMax: 1.1 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A4-1250 vs Celeron 847 Performance Spectrum

A4-1250

2 / 2

1,258

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 847

2 / 2

1,270

+1.0%

Celeron N3000

Pentium T3400

Pentium Dual-Core E2200

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A4-1250 vs Celeron 847 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A4-1250 vs Celeron 847: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A4-1250

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $34 less on MSRP ($100 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Delivers 32.7% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.6 vs 9.5 PassMark/$ ($100 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
✅Draws 8W instead of 17W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (111 vs 196).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (188 vs 354).

Celeron 847

2011

Why buy it

✅+76.6% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 9.5 vs 12.6 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
❌112.5% higher power demand at 17W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 847 better than A4-1250?

Yes. Celeron 847 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 88.3% better Geekbench multi-core, and 1.0% higher PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 847 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 847 is the stronger fit. You are getting 88.3% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron 847 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron 847 comes in 34.0% more expensive on MSRP at $134 MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. A4-1250 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 0.9% in the shared gaming data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A4-1250 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-1250 vs Celeron 847 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A4-1250

The A4-1250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,258 points. Launch price was $50.

Celeron 847

The Celeron 847 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 1.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,270 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A4-1250 and Celeron 847 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the A4-1250 versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 — a 9.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 847. The A4-1250 uses the Temash (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 847 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-1250 scores 1,258 against the Celeron 847's 1,270 — a 0.9% lead for the Celeron 847. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 111 vs 196, a 55.4% lead for the Celeron 847 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 188 vs 354 (61.3% advantage for the Celeron 847). L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-1250 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 847.

Feature	A4-1250	Celeron 847
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	1.1 GHz+10%
Base Clock	—	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Temash (2013)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,258	1,270
Geekbench 6 Single	111	196+77%
Geekbench 6 Multi	188	354+88%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-1250 uses the FT3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 847 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L 1333 MHz memory speed. The Celeron 847 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-1250) vs 2 (Celeron 847). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-1250) vs 16 (Celeron 847) — the Celeron 847 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: FT3 (A4-1250) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 847).

Feature	A4-1250	Celeron 847
Socket	FT3	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L 1333 MHz	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	8	16+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: true (A4-1250) vs VT-x (Celeron 847). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 8210 (A4-1250) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 847) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-1250 targets Tablet, Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-1250 rivals Atom Z3740; Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	A4-1250	Celeron 847
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 8210	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	true	VT-x
Target Use	Tablet	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A4-1250 was priced at $100, while the Celeron 847 came in at $134. On launch pricing ($100 vs $134), A4-1250 was $34 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A4-1250 delivers 12.6 pts/$ vs 9.5 pts/$ for the Celeron 847 — making the A4-1250 the 28.1% better value option.

Feature	A4-1250	Celeron 847
MSRP	$100-25%	$134
Performance per Dollar	12.6+33%	9.5
Release Date	2013	2011

Search A4-1250 on Amazon

Search Celeron 847 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.