Celeron 847 vs Celeron 1020M

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.

Celeron 847 vs Celeron 1020M 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.

Celeron 847 vs Celeron 1020M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 847

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 17W instead of 512W, a 495W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,270 vs 1,275).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Celeron 1020M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Celeron 1020M

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌2911.8% higher power demand at 512W vs 17W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1020M better than Celeron 847?

Yes. Celeron 1020M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.4% 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, Celeron 1020M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Celeron 1020M is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1020M is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron 1020M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% 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, especially when the gap is already 0.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron 1020M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 847 vs Celeron 1020M Technical Specifications

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

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.

Celeron 1020M

The Celeron 1020M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,275 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 847 and Celeron 1020M share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 versus 2.1 GHz on the Celeron 1020M — a 62.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 1020M (base: 1.1 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Celeron 847 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 1020M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 847 scores 1,270 against the Celeron 1020M's 1,275 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron 1020M. Both processors carry 2 MB (total) of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 847	Celeron 1020M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.1 GHz	2.1 GHz+91%
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	2.1 GHz+91%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,270	1,275
Geekbench 6 Single	196	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	354	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 847 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1020M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 847 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1020M — the Celeron 1020M supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1020M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 16 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 847) and HM77,HM76,HM75 (Celeron 1020M).

Feature	Celeron 847	Celeron 1020M
Socket	BGA1023	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	32 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 847) and HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1020M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 847 targets Budget, Celeron 1020M targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron 1020M rivals Pentium 2020M.