
Celeron 847

Core i3-330E
Celeron 847 vs Core i3-330E Performance Spectrum
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.
Celeron 847 vs Core i3-330E 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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant

Among Us

Apex Legends

ARC Raiders

Baldur's Gate 3

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
Celeron 847 vs Core i3-330E: 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
2011Why buy it
- ✅Costs $43 less on MSRP ($134 MSRP vs $177 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 33.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 9.5 vs 7.1 PassMark/$ ($134 MSRP vs $177 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 17W instead of 35W, a 18W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), while Core i3-330E needs a discrete GPU.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 3 MB).
Core i3-330E
2010Why buy it
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (3 MB vs 2 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (1,260 vs 1,270).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 9.5 PassMark/$ ($177 MSRP vs $134 MSRP).
- ❌105.9% higher power demand at 35W vs 17W.
- ❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 847 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
Quick Answers
So, is Celeron 847 better than Core i3-330E?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Celeron 847 vs Core i3-330E 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 i3-330E
The Core i3-330E is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 0.03 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800, DDR3-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,260 points. Launch price was $177.
Processing Power
The Celeron 847 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, matching the Core i3-330E's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 847 versus 0.03 GHz on the Core i3-330E — a 189.4% clock advantage for the Celeron 847 (base: 1.1 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Celeron 847 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i3-330E uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 847 scores 1,270 against the Core i3-330E's 1,260 — a 0.8% lead for the Celeron 847. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 847 vs 3 MB on the Core i3-330E.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Core i3-330E |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 4 |
| Boost Clock | 1.1 GHz+3567% | 0.03 GHz |
| Base Clock | 1.1 GHz | 2.13 GHz+94% |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 3 MB+50% |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB+100% |
| Process | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Architecture | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Westmere (2010−2011) |
| PassMark | 1,270 | 1,260 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 196 | — |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 354 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 847 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-330E uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Core i3-330E |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1023 | BGA1288 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | — |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB | — |
| RAM Channels | 2 | — |
| ECC Support | No | — |
| PCIe Lanes | 16 | — |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 847) / not specified (Core i3-330E). The Celeron 847 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)), while the Core i3-330E requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 847 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 847 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Core i3-330E |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | — |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | — |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Value Analysis
At launch, the Celeron 847 was priced at $134, while the Core i3-330E came in at $177. On launch pricing ($134 vs $177), Celeron 847 was $43 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 847 delivers 9.5 pts/$ vs 7.1 pts/$ for the Core i3-330E — making the Celeron 847 the 28.4% better value option.
| Feature | Celeron 847 | Core i3-330E |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $134-24% | $177 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.5+34% | 7.1 |
| Release Date | 2011 | 2010 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.














