A4-3330MX vs Celeron 847

A4-3330MX vs Celeron 847 Performance Spectrum

A4-3330MX

2 / 2

1,264

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 847

2 / 2

1,270

+0.5%

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.

A4-3330MX 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.

A4-3330MX 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.

A4-3330MX

2011

Why buy it

✅+34.2% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,264 vs 1,270).
❌164.7% higher power demand at 45W vs 17W.

Celeron 847

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 17W instead of 45W, a 28W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (196 vs 263).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while A4-3330MX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 847 better than A4-3330MX?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-3330MX is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 847 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 847 is the better buy right now. Celeron 847 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $134 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that A4-3330MX is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (9.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 847 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A4-3330MX vs Celeron 847 Technical Specifications

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

A4-3330MX

The A4-3330MX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FS1. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,264 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 A4-3330MX and Celeron 847 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the A4-3330MX versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 — a 81.1% clock advantage for the A4-3330MX (base: 2.2 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The A4-3330MX uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 847 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-3330MX scores 1,264 against the Celeron 847's 1,270 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron 847. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 263 vs 196, a 29.2% lead for the A4-3330MX that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A4-3330MX vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 847.

Feature	A4-3330MX	Celeron 847
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz+136%	1.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz+100%	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,264	1,270
Geekbench 6 Single	263+34%	196
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	354

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-3330MX uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 847 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A4-3330MX	Celeron 847
Socket	FS1	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A4-3330MX) vs VT-x (Celeron 847). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6480G (A4-3330MX) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 847) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-3330MX targets Budget Laptop, Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-3330MX rivals Pentium B980; Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.