Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 847

Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 847 Performance Spectrum

Athlon X2 QL-60

2 / 2

1,273

+0.2%

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.

Athlon X2 QL-60 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.

Athlon X2 QL-60 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.

Athlon X2 QL-60

2008

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 17W, a 16W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 847 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 847

2011

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Athlon X2 QL-60 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,270 vs 1,273).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Athlon X2 QL-60 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1600% higher power demand at 17W vs 1W.

Quick Answers

So, is Athlon X2 QL-60 better than Celeron 847?

Yes. Athlon X2 QL-60 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Athlon X2 QL-60 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.9% 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, Athlon X2 QL-60 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Athlon X2 QL-60 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Athlon X2 QL-60 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% 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 1.9% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron 847 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Athlon X2 QL-60 vs Celeron 847 Technical Specifications

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

Athlon X2 QL-60

The Athlon X2 QL-60 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2009-01-01. It is based on the Lion (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: S1. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Passmark benchmark score: 1,273 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

Both the Athlon X2 QL-60 and Celeron 847 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.9 GHz on the Athlon X2 QL-60 versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 — a 53.3% clock advantage for the Athlon X2 QL-60. The Athlon X2 QL-60 uses the Lion (2008−2009) architecture (65 nm), while the Celeron 847 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon X2 QL-60 scores 1,273 against the Celeron 847's 1,270 — a 0.2% lead for the Athlon X2 QL-60. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon X2 QL-60 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 847.

Feature	Athlon X2 QL-60	Celeron 847
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.9 GHz+73%	1.1 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.1 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB	256K (per core)+25500%
Process	65 nm	32 nm-51%
Architecture	Lion (2008−2009)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,273	1,270
Geekbench 6 Single	—	196
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	354

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Athlon X2 QL-60 uses the S1 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 X2 QL-60 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 847 — the Celeron 847 supports 99.9% 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. PCIe lanes: 0 (Athlon X2 QL-60) vs 16 (Celeron 847) — the Celeron 847 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: AMD S1 (Athlon X2 QL-60) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 847).

Feature	Athlon X2 QL-60	Celeron 847
Socket	S1	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	DDR3-1333+100%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Athlon X2 QL-60) / VT-x (Celeron 847). The Celeron 847 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Athlon X2 QL-60 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.