Celeron 847 vs Athlon Neo MV-40
Celeron 847
Athlon Neo MV-40
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 Celeron 847 is positioned at rank 1093 and the Athlon Neo MV-40 is on rank 1020, 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 Celeron 847
Performance Per Dollar Athlon Neo MV-40
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 847 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Huron (2009) / 65 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 847 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+201%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($15) | ✅ More affordable ($5) |
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 Celeron 847 and Athlon Neo MV-40
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.
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.
Processing Power
The Celeron 847 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Athlon Neo MV-40 offers 1 cores / 1 threads — the Celeron 847 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 versus 1.6 GHz on the Athlon Neo MV-40 — a 37% clock advantage for the Athlon Neo MV-40. The Celeron 847 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Athlon Neo MV-40 uses Huron (2009) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 847 scores 1,270 against the Athlon Neo MV-40's 1,274 — a 0.3% lead for the Athlon Neo MV-40.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2+100% | 1 / 1 |
| Boost Clock | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz+45% |
| Base Clock | 1.1 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | — |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB+100% |
| Process | 32 nm-51% | 65 nm |
| Architecture | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Huron (2009) |
| PassMark | 1,270 | 1,274 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 196 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 354 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 847 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Athlon Neo MV-40 uses ASB1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 847 versus DDR2-667 on the Athlon Neo MV-40 — 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: 16 (Celeron 847) vs 0 (Athlon Neo MV-40) — the Celeron 847 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 847) and AMD ASB1 (Athlon Neo MV-40).
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1023 | ASB1 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333+50% | DDR2-667 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+300% | 4 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 0 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 847) / not specified (Athlon Neo MV-40). 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 | Celeron 847 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | No |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 847 launched at $134 MSRP, while the Athlon Neo MV-40 debuted at $100. At current prices ($15 vs $5), the Athlon Neo MV-40 is $10 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 847 delivers 84.7 pts/$ vs 254.8 pts/$ for the Athlon Neo MV-40 — making the Athlon Neo MV-40 the 100.2% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Athlon Neo MV-40 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $134 | $100-25% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $5-67% |
| Performance per Dollar | 84.7 | 254.8+201% |
| Release Date | 2011 | 2009 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 847 and Athlon Neo MV-40
