Celeron 220 vs Pentium 4 2.40

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 2.40 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 2.40: 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

✅Costs $151 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $193 MSRP).
✅Delivers 352.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 7.6 vs 1.7 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $193 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (320 vs 325).
❌365.5% higher power demand at 512W vs 110W.

Pentium 4 2.40

2004

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 1.7 vs 7.6 PassMark/$ ($193 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Pentium 4 2.40 better than Celeron 220?

Yes. Pentium 4 2.40 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 1.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Pentium 4 2.40 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 100% higher max boost clock.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Pentium 4 2.40 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.6% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 1 threads.

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

Pentium 4 2.40 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Pentium 4 2.40 comes in 359.5% more expensive on MSRP at $193 MSRP versus $42 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.6% higher PassMark. Celeron 220 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.

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 2004). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron 220 vs Pentium 4 2.40 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 2.40

The Pentium 4 2.40 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: 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 90 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 110 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 325 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 220 and Pentium 4 2.40 share an identical 1-core/1-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 220 versus 2.4 GHz on the Pentium 4 2.40 — a 66.7% clock advantage for the Pentium 4 2.40. The Celeron 220 uses the Conroe (2006−2007) architecture (65 nm), while the Pentium 4 2.40 uses NetBurst (2000−2006) (90 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 220 scores 320 against the Pentium 4 2.40's 325 — a 1.6% lead for the Pentium 4 2.40. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.40
Cores / Threads	1 / 1	1 / 1
Boost Clock	1.2 GHz	2.4 GHz+100%
Base Clock	1.2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	65 nm-28%	90 nm
Architecture	Conroe (2006−2007)	NetBurst (2000−2006)
PassMark	320	325+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 220 uses the BGA479 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Pentium 4 2.40 uses PGA478 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-667 on the Celeron 220 versus 400 on the Pentium 4 2.40 — the Celeron 220 supports 66.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4 GB of RAM. Both feature 1-channel memory with ECC support. Chipset compatibility: 945G,G31,G41 (Celeron 220) and Socket 478 (Pentium 4 2.40).

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.40
Socket	BGA479	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-667+67%	400
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	1
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: No (Celeron 220) vs false (Pentium 4 2.40). Primary use case: Celeron 220 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 220 rivals Athlon 64 3100+.

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.40
Integrated GPU	No	No
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	No	false
Target Use	Budget	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron 220 was priced at $42, while the Pentium 4 2.40 came in at $193. On launch pricing ($42 vs $193), Celeron 220 was $151 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron 220 delivers 7.6 pts/$ vs 1.7 pts/$ for the Pentium 4 2.40 — making the Celeron 220 the 127.6% better value option.

Feature	Celeron 220	Pentium 4 2.40
MSRP	$42-78%	$193
Performance per Dollar	7.6+347%	1.7
Release Date	2007	2004

Search Celeron 220 on Amazon

Search Pentium 4 2.40 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.