A6-3410MX vs Celeron 847

A6-3410MX vs Celeron 847 Performance Spectrum

A6-3410MX

4 / 4

1,274

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Celeron 847

2 / 2

1,270

0.0%

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.

A6-3410MX 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.

A6-3410MX 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.

A6-3410MX

2011

Why buy it

✅+38.3% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.

Trade-offs

❌164.7% higher power demand at 45W vs 17W.

Celeron 847

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 17W instead of 45W, a 28W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (196 vs 271).
❌Lower PassMark (1,270 vs 1,274).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while A6-3410MX mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is A6-3410MX better than Celeron 847?

Yes. A6-3410MX is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A6-3410MX is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% 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, A6-3410MX is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A6-3410MX is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. A6-3410MX comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% 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, especially when the gap is already 1.8% in the shared gaming data.

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

A6-3410MX makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A6-3410MX vs Celeron 847 Technical Specifications

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

A6-3410MX

The A6-3410MX is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 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: 1,274 points. Launch price was $70.

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

The A6-3410MX packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 847 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the A6-3410MX has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the A6-3410MX versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 — a 70.6% clock advantage for the A6-3410MX (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.1 GHz). The A6-3410MX uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 847 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the A6-3410MX scores 1,274 against the Celeron 847's 1,270 — a 0.3% lead for the A6-3410MX. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 271 vs 196, a 32.1% lead for the A6-3410MX that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A6-3410MX vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 847.

Feature	A6-3410MX	Celeron 847
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.3 GHz+109%	1.1 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz+45%	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	1,274	1,270
Geekbench 6 Single	271+38%	196
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	354

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A6-3410MX uses the FS1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 847 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1600 on the A6-3410MX versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 847 — the A6-3410MX supports 20% 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. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes.

Feature	A6-3410MX	Celeron 847
Socket	FS1	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600+20%	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: AMD-V (A6-3410MX) vs VT-x (Celeron 847). Both include integrated graphics — Radeon HD 6520G (A6-3410MX) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 847) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A6-3410MX targets Mainstream Laptop, Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: A6-3410MX rivals Core i3-2330M; Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.

Feature	A6-3410MX	Celeron 847
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6520G	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	VT-x
Target Use	Mainstream Laptop	Budget