Celeron 2.60 vs Pentium 4 2.66

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 2.60 vs Pentium 4 2.66 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 2.60 vs Pentium 4 2.66: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 2.60

2003

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +11.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $247 less on MSRP ($53 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 476.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.3 vs 1.3 PassMark/$ ($53 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Draws 73W instead of 110W, a 37W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Pentium 4 2.66

2002

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 2.60 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (378 vs 385).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.3 vs 7.3 PassMark/$ ($300 MSRP vs $53 MSRP).
❌50.7% higher power demand at 110W vs 73W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 2.60 better than Pentium 4 2.66?

Yes. Celeron 2.60 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 11.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.9% 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 2.60 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 11.1% 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 2.60 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 2.60 is the better buy right now. Celeron 2.60 comes in $247 cheaper on MSRP at $53 MSRP versus $300 MSRP, and it still gives you a 11.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 476.5% better value on MSRP (7.3 vs 1.3 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 2.60 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2003 vs 2002) and more multi-core headroom with 1 cores / 1 threads instead of 1/1. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 2.60 vs Pentium 4 2.66 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 2.60

The Celeron 2.60 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 128 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 73 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 385 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium 4 2.66

The Pentium 4 2.66 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the NetBurst (2000−2006) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Max frequency: 2.66 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 130 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 110 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 378 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 2.60 and Pentium 4 2.66 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.6 GHz on the Celeron 2.60 versus 2.66 GHz on the Pentium 4 2.66 — a 2.3% clock advantage for the Pentium 4 2.66. The Celeron 2.60 uses the Northwood (2002−2004) architecture (130 nm), while the Pentium 4 2.66 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 2.60 scores 385 against the Pentium 4 2.66's 378 — a 1.8% lead for the Celeron 2.60. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Pentium 4 2.66
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	2.6 GHz	2.66 GHz+2%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	128 kB	512 kB+300%
Process	130 nm	130 nm
Architecture	Northwood (2002−2004)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	385+2%	378

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the PGA478 socket with PCIe 1.1.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Pentium 4 2.66
Socket	PGA478	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-400	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 2.60) / not specified (Pentium 4 2.66). Primary use case: Celeron 2.60 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2.60 rivals Pentium 4 2.40.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Pentium 4 2.66
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	No	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 2.60 was priced at $53, while the Pentium 4 2.66 came in at $300. On launch pricing ($53 vs $300), Celeron 2.60 was $247 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 2.60 delivers 7.3 pts/$ vs 1.3 pts/$ for the Pentium 4 2.66 — making the Celeron 2.60 the 140.9% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 2.60	Pentium 4 2.66
MSRP	$53-82%	$300
Performance per Dollar	7.3+462%	1.3
Release Date	2003	2002

Search Celeron 2.60 on Amazon

Search Pentium 4 2.66 on Amazon

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.