WetGeek My little Travelmate laptop has a Celeron, and I'm not sure how much memory, but it's not much. It will run Solus with Vivaldi and a bunch of tab stacks, and stream an Amazon Prime video without any pauses.
A lot of it is in the processor and the graphics card. Almost every computer built in the last decade has at least 32 GB of HHD/SSD, so that isn't an issue except in rare cases.
My experience: Solus ran sluggishly on a Dell 11-3180 with an AMD E2-9000e/R2 processor, but ran fine on a Dell 11-3180 with an AMD A9-9420/R5. Otherwise, the two computers were more or less identical (11" 1366x768 display, 4GB RAM, 32/64 GB SSD). The E2-9000e is the equivalent of a Celeron N3060, and the A9-9420e is the equivalent of a Celeron N4000, in each case circa 2017-2018. All are lower end processors, but a small difference makes a big difference.
But, as I said in an earlier comment, subjective judgement is as important as objective specifications.
I'm used to running Solus on a 6th Gen i5, so that is my personal, if almost unconscious benchmark -- my brain measures performance based on that subjective/objective standard. Running Solus on a 4th Gen i3 at the railroad was slower, but acceptable, because the differences were not significant enough for me to notice after 5-10 minutes of use. Running Solus on an 8th Gen i5 is objectively faster, but not enough to elicit a "Wow!" response. And so on.
I'm not sure what use this discussion is, to be truthful. As a general rule, I tell people that Linux will run more quickly than Windows 10 on a given computer. On lower-end computers, the difference is more noticable than on higher-end computers, in my experience. But Linux will not turn a sway-back into a racehorse.
