Athlon Neo MV-40 vs Celeron 847
Athlon Neo MV-40
Celeron 847
Performance Spectrum - CPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Athlon Neo MV-40 is positioned at rank 1020 and the Celeron 847 is on rank 1093, so the Athlon Neo MV-40 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Athlon Neo MV-40
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 847
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Huron (2009) / 65 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+201%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($5) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Athlon Neo MV-40 and Celeron 847
Athlon Neo MV-40
The Athlon Neo MV-40 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Huron (2009) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: ASB1. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,274 points. Launch price was $149.
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 Athlon Neo MV-40 packs 1 cores / 1 threads, while the Celeron 847 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron 847 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Athlon Neo MV-40 versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 — a 37% clock advantage for the Athlon Neo MV-40. The Athlon Neo MV-40 uses the Huron (2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 847 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon Neo MV-40 scores 1,274 against the Celeron 847's 1,270 — a 0.3% lead for the Athlon Neo MV-40.
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 1 / 1 | 2 / 2+100% |
| Boost Clock | 1.6 GHz+45% | 1.1 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | — | 2 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB+100% | 256K (per core) |
| Process | 65 nm | 32 nm-51% |
| Architecture | Huron (2009) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| PassMark | 1,274 | 1,270 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 196 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 354 |
Memory & Platform
The Athlon Neo MV-40 uses the ASB1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 847 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Athlon Neo MV-40 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 847 — the Celeron 847 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 4 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon Neo MV-40) vs 16 (Celeron 847) — the Celeron 847 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD ASB1 (Athlon Neo MV-40) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 847).
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | ASB1 | BGA1023 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR2-667 | DDR3-1333+50% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 0 | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Athlon Neo MV-40) / VT-x (Celeron 847). The Celeron 847 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon Neo MV-40 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | Yes |
| IGPU Model | — | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x |
| Target Use | — | Budget |
Value Analysis
The Athlon Neo MV-40 launched at $100 MSRP, while the Celeron 847 debuted at $134. At current prices ($5 vs $15), the Athlon Neo MV-40 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Athlon Neo MV-40 delivers 254.8 pts/$ vs 84.7 pts/$ for the Celeron 847 — making the Athlon Neo MV-40 the 100.2% better value option.
| Feature | Athlon Neo MV-40 | Celeron 847 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-25% | $134 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $5-67% | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 254.8+201% | 84.7 |
| Release Date | 2009 | 2011 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Athlon Neo MV-40 and Celeron 847
