Celeron 220 vs Pentium 4 2.26

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 220 vs Pentium 4 2.26 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 220 vs Pentium 4 2.26: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron 220

2007

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +14.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Costs $199 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $241 MSRP).
✅Delivers 522.4% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 1.2 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $241 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌365.5% higher power demand at 512W vs 110W.

Pentium 4 2.26

2002

Why buy it

✅Draws 110W instead of 512W, a 402W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 220 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (295 vs 320).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.2 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($241 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 220 better than Pentium 4 2.26?

Yes. Celeron 220 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 8.5% 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 220 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 14.3% 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 220 is the stronger fit. You are getting 8.5% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Celeron 220 is the better buy right now. Celeron 220 comes in $199 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $241 MSRP, and it still gives you a 14.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 522.4% better value on MSRP (7.6 vs 1.2 PassMark/$), 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 220 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 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 220 vs Pentium 4 2.26 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron 220

The Celeron 220 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture. It features 1 cores and 1 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: BGA479. Thermal design power (TDP): 19 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 320 points. Launch price was $69.

Pentium 4 2.26

The Pentium 4 2.26 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: 2.26 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: 295 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 220 and Pentium 4 2.26 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 versus 2.26 GHz on the Pentium 4 2.26 — a 61.3% clock advantage for the Pentium 4 2.26. The Celeron 220 uses the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture (65 nm), while the Pentium 4 2.26 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (130 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 220 scores 320 against the Pentium 4 2.26's 295 — a 8.1% lead for the Celeron 220. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.26
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	2.26 GHz+88%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	512 kB
Process	65 nm-50%	130 nm
Architecture	Conroe (2006−2007)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	320+8%	295

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 220 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Pentium 4 2.26 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.26
Socket	BGA479	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667	—
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: No (Celeron 220) / not specified (Pentium 4 2.26). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.26
Integrated GPU	No	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	No	—
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 220 was priced at $42, while the Pentium 4 2.26 came in at $241. On launch pricing ($42 vs $241), Celeron 220 was $199 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 220 delivers 7.6 pts/$ vs 1.2 pts/$ for the Pentium 4 2.26 — making the Celeron 220 the 144.6% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.26
MSRP	$42-83%	$241
Performance per Dollar	7.6+533%	1.2
Release Date	2007	2002

Search Celeron 220 on Amazon

Search Pentium 4 2.26 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.