Celeron 847 vs Core i3-2350M

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 Core i3-2350M 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 Core i3-2350M: 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 Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (196 vs 390).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (354 vs 806).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Core i3-2350M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i3-2350M

2011

Why buy it

✅+99% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-2350M better than Celeron 847?

Yes. Core i3-2350M is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 127.7% better Geekbench multi-core, 0.5% higher 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, Core i3-2350M is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.4% 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, Core i3-2350M is the stronger fit. You are getting 127.7% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).

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

Core i3-2350M is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Core i3-2350M comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.4% 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 0.4% in the shared gaming data.

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

Core i3-2350M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 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 Core i3-2350M 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.

Core i3-2350M

The Core i3-2350M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 October 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,276 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron 847 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-2350M's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 versus 2.3 GHz on the Core i3-2350M — a 70.6% clock advantage for the Core i3-2350M (base: 1.1 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). Both are built on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture using a 32 nm process. In PassMark, the Celeron 847 scores 1,270 against the Core i3-2350M's 1,276 — a 0.5% lead for the Core i3-2350M. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 196 vs 390, a 66.2% lead for the Core i3-2350M that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 354 vs 806 (77.9% advantage for the Core i3-2350M). L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 847 vs 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-2350M.

Feature	Celeron 847	Core i3-2350M
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.1 GHz	2.3 GHz+109%
Base Clock	1.1 GHz	2.3 GHz+109%
L3 Cache	2 MB (total)	3 MB (total)+50%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,270	1,276
Geekbench 6 Single	196	390+99%
Geekbench 6 Multi	354	806+128%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 847 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-2350M uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. Both support up to 16 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 16 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 847) and HM65,HM67,QM67 (Core i3-2350M).

Feature	Celeron 847	Core i3-2350M
Socket	BGA1023	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1333	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	16 GB	16 GB
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 Intel HD Graphics 3000 (Core i3-2350M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 847 targets Budget, Core i3-2350M targets Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.