Celeron 847 vs Celeron N3060
Celeron 847
Celeron N3060
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 Celeron N3060 is on rank 173, so the Celeron N3060 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 Celeron N3060
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 847 | Celeron N3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($107) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Braswell (2015−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 847 | Celeron N3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅ Better overall value (+615%) | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($15) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($107) |
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 Celeron N3060
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 N3060
The Celeron N3060 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.48 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,267 points. Launch price was $107.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 847 and Celeron N3060 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 versus 2.48 GHz on the Celeron N3060 — a 77.1% clock advantage for the Celeron N3060 (base: 1.1 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron 847 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron N3060 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 847 scores 1,270 against the Celeron N3060's 1,267 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron 847. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 847 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N3060.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Celeron N3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.1 GHz | 2.48 GHz+125% |
| Base Clock | 1.1 GHz | 1.6 GHz+45% |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB+300% |
| Process | 32 nm | 14 nm-56% |
| Architecture | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| PassMark | 1,270 | 1,267 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 196 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 354 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 847 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3060 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 847 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3060 — the Celeron N3060 supports 199.3% 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 — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 847) vs 4 (Celeron N3060) — the Celeron 847 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 847) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3060).
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Celeron N3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1023 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 3.0+50% |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | 1600+53233% |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+209715100% | 8 |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+300% | 4 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 847) vs true (Celeron N3060). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 847) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3060) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967; Celeron N3060 rivals AMD E2-9010.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Celeron N3060 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | Intel HD Graphics 400 |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x | true |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
The Celeron 847 launched at $134 MSRP, while the Celeron N3060 debuted at $107.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Celeron N3060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $134 | $107-20% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | — |
| Release Date | 2011 | 2016 |
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 Celeron N3060
