A4-9120C vs Celeron 847

A4-9120C vs Celeron 847 Performance Spectrum

A4-9120C

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.

A4-9120C 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.

A4-9120C 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.

A4-9120C

2019

Why buy it

✅+113.3% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 6W instead of 17W, a 11W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,258 vs 1,270).

Celeron 847

2011

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 8) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (196 vs 418).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while A4-9120C mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌183.3% higher power demand at 17W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is A4-9120C better than Celeron 847?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A4-9120C is ahead with a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 847 pulls ahead with 1% 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 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A4-9120C is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. A4-9120C comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 847 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.

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

A4-9120C makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

A4-9120C vs Celeron 847 Technical Specifications

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

A4-9120C

The A4-9120C is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: BGA. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR4. 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 A4-9120C and Celeron 847 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the A4-9120C versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 — a 37% clock advantage for the A4-9120C. The A4-9120C uses the Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) architecture (28 nm), while the Celeron 847 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A4-9120C 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 418 vs 196, a 72.3% lead for the A4-9120C that directly translates to higher frame rates.

Feature	A4-9120C	Celeron 847
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz+45%	1.1 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	—	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	28 nm-13%	32 nm
Architecture	Stoney Ridge (2016−2019)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,258	1,270
Geekbench 6 Single	418+113%	196
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	354

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A4-9120C uses the BGA socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 847 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-1866 on the A4-9120C versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 847 — the A4-9120C supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 847 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (A4-9120C) vs 2 (Celeron 847). PCIe lanes: 8 (A4-9120C) vs 16 (Celeron 847) — the Celeron 847 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	A4-9120C	Celeron 847
Socket	BGA	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866+40%	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: AMD-V (A4-9120C) vs VT-x (Celeron 847). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon R4 (A4-9120C) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 847) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A4-9120C targets Chromebook, Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A4-9120C rivals Celeron N3350; Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.