In Control, the Ryzen Embedded R1600 is slightly faster than the Celeron 847. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Ryzen Embedded R1600
- Up to 1% faster in Control – 246 vs 244 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Control
- Is 8 years and 8 months newer – Feb 25, 2020 vs Jun 19, 2011
- Is 8 years and 8 months newer
Celeron 847
- Consumes up to 32% less energy – 17 vs 25 Watts
- Consumes up to 32% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Control FPS Calculator
Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Celeron 847: Comparison of performance and price
Ryzen Embedded R1600
Feb 25th, 2020
Average FPS
246 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
161 FPS
100%
Price, $
...
Value, $/FPS
...
All items are out of stock
All items are out of stock
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Celeron 847 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Celeron 847 in core CPU performance specifications
Ryzen Embedded R1600
Feb 25th, 2020
Cores
2-core
100%
L3 Cache
4 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
3.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Celeron 847
Jun 19th, 2011
Cores
2-core
100%
L3 Cache
2 MB
50%
Base Frequency
1.1 GHz
42%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Ryzen Embedded R1600 Feb 25th, 2020 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron 847 Jun 19th, 2011 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Feb 25th, 2020 | Release Date | Jun 19th, 2011 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Laptop |
| FP5 | Socket | Intel BGA 1023 |
| 25W | Power Consumption | 17W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2400 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
