Pentium 4 3.00GHz Benchmarks & Performance Report

Sysbuilds Alpha Stage!

Please take all results with a big grain of salt. Sysbuilds is in alpha stage at the moment which can lead to wrong data, strange counting errors, silly results and more. This site is under active development.

Benchmark Results

Combined benchmark scores based on multiple data points, giving a quick overview of this processor's performance.

Overall Score

Overall score for Pentium 4 3.00GHz based on all benchmark results gathered. Look at this like a meta score, you will find more specific workload ratings below.

3,858 Rank: 1987

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1983	Turion X2 Ultra Mobile ZM-82	3,870	+0.3%
1984	Atom x7-Z8750	3,867	+0.2%
1985	Celeron N3150	3,865	+0.2%
1986	Celeron N2930	3,863	+0.1%
1987	Pentium 4 3.00GHz	3,858
1988	Intel Atom x7-E3950	3,857	+-0%
1989	Atom Z3740	3,856	-0.1%
1990	Pentium N3510	3,852	-0.2%
1991	Core 2 Duo T9550	3,851	-0.2%
1992	Intel Atom x5-Z8500	3,850	-0.2%

View full ranking →

Multicore Score

Multicore performance score for Pentium 4 3.00GHz based on multi-threaded benchmark results.

3,734 Rank: 2060

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
2051	Core 2 Duo E4500	4,062	+8.8%
2052	Intel Core i7-640UM	4,050	+8.5%
2053	Intel Core i7-820QM	4,035	+8.1%
2054	Athlon 64 X2 5200+	4,029	+7.9%
2055	Athlon 64 X2 5000+	4,017	+7.6%
2056	Core 2 Duo T9500	4,015	+7.5%
2057	Core 2 Duo E7400	4,011	+7.4%
2058	Celeron 857	3,978	+6.5%
2059	Core 2 Duo L9600	3,952	+5.8%
2060	Pentium 4 3.00GHz	3,734

View full ranking →

Singlecore Score

Single-core performance score for Pentium 4 3.00GHz based on single-threaded benchmark results.

3,940 Rank: 1809

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1805	A4-4300M	3,943	+0.1%
1806	Celeron B815	3,942	+0.1%
1807	A10-5745M	3,942	+0.1%
1808	Athlon II P320	3,942	+0.1%
1809	Pentium 4 3.00GHz	3,940
1810	Athlon II X3 400e	3,940	+0%
1811	Core 2 Duo T5870	3,939	+-0%
1812	Athlon II X2 235e	3,939	+-0%
1813	Athlon II P340	3,938	-0.1%
1814	E2-9000	3,938	-0.1%

View full ranking →

Workload Scores

Performance scores grouped by workload type, normalized and aggregated from multiple raw benchmark results.

Number Crunching

Aggregated score for Pentium 4 3.00GHz based on integer math, floating point math, and prime number computation benchmarks.

4,456 Rank: 1758

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1754	C-50	4,457	+0%
1755	Atom N550	4,457	+0%
1756	Celeron 430	4,457	+0%
1757	Sempron 3200+	4,457	+0%
1758	Pentium 4 3.00GHz	4,456
1759	Pentium SU2700	4,456	+0%
1760	Athlon 64 3200+	4,455	+-0%
1761	Sempron 2500+	4,454	+-0%
1762	Atom D2500	4,453	-0.1%
1763	Atom N450	4,452	-0.1%

View full ranking →

Data Processing

Aggregated score for Pentium 4 3.00GHz based on data encryption, data compression, and string sorting benchmarks.

4,425 Rank: 1749

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1745	Athlon 64 4000+	4,426	+0%
1746	E-300	4,426	+0%
1747	Atom N550	4,426	+0%
1748	Athlon 64 3500+	4,425	+0%
1749	Pentium 4 3.00GHz	4,425
1750	Atom D2500	4,425	+0%
1751	C-70	4,425	+0%
1752	Athlon 64 3200+	4,424	+-0%
1753	Sempron LE-1250	4,424	+-0%
1754	C-60	4,423	+-0%

View full ranking →

Physics & Compute

Aggregated score for Pentium 4 3.00GHz based on physics simulation and extended instruction set (SSE/AVX) benchmarks.

4,438 Rank: 1746

Rank	Name	Score	Visual
1742	E1-2100	4,439	+0%
1743	A4-1250	4,439	+0%
1744	Atom N550	4,439	+0%
1745	V120	4,438	+0%
1746	Pentium 4 3.00GHz	4,438
1747	Athlon 64 3500+	4,437	+-0%
1748	E1-1200	4,437	+-0%
1749	E1-1500	4,437	+-0%
1750	Sempron LE-1300	4,437	+-0%
1751	E-300	4,436	+-0%

View full ranking →

Pentium 4 3.00GHz Details

Released in an era when dual-core processors were still considered high-performance, the Pentium 4 3.00GHz stands as a relic of early 2000s desktop computing. Though it was once a flagship offering from Intel, the processor now ranks at the bottom of performance benchmarks, reflecting both its age and the rapid evolution of CPU technology. As of March 2026, this 65 nm, 32-bit processor is no longer competitive in modern computing environments, yet it remains a notable example of Intel’s transition toward higher clock speeds during the early 2000s. Designed for mainstream desktops, the Pentium 4 3.00GHz features a 2.0 GHz base frequency and a turbo frequency of 1.86 GHz, with a modest 31 W TDP and a PBGA479/PPGA478 socket.

It supports DDR3L 1066 memory at a maximum of 8 GB, with dual-channel memory architecture and a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. The processor includes integrated Intel HD Graphics with a base frequency of 313 MHz and a burst frequency of 756 MHz, capable of driving up to two displays. It supports a range of advanced features, including SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, AES encryption, x86-64, Hyper-Threading, and Intel’s vPro and TXT technologies. Despite its extensive feature set, the Pentium 4 3.00GHz struggles in modern benchmarking.

It scores 3,734 in multicore performance, ranking #2060 of 2060, with a single-core score of 3,940 (#1809 of 2060) and an overall score of 3,858 (#1987 of 2060). These results place it behind even low-end modern processors like the Intel Atom and AMD E-Series. In comparison, it trails behind the Celeron 857, Core 2 Duo E7400, and Core 2 Duo T9500, all of which deliver higher performance despite using similar or older architectures. Its poor multicore ranking highlights its inability to scale efficiently across multiple threads, a limitation exacerbated by its outdated 32-bit design and lack of modern cache hierarchy.

The processor's most competitive strength lies in its single-core performance, where it narrowly outperforms some low-power devices like the Athlon II X2 235e and Core 2 Duo T5870. However, even this is overshadowed by contemporary low-power CPUs such as the A10-5745M and Celeron B815. In conclusion, the Pentium 4 3.00GHz serves as a historical artifact rather than a practical choice for modern computing. Its design reflects the technological priorities of its time—high clock speeds and integrated graphics—but it lacks the efficiency, multi-threading capability, and memory support required for today’s workloads.

It may still be suitable for basic tasks or embedded systems where legacy compatibility is essential, but for any performance-oriented application, it is far surpassed by even budget processors released within the last decade.