Best Budget CPUs of 2026, Benchmarked and Ranked

Best Budget CPUs
(Image credit: 3DTested)

The budget CPU market continues to be important, at a time when GPU, RAM, and storage prices have shot through the roof. Both AMD and Intel have options if you’re on the hunt for the best budget CPU, but you’ll need to look back a few generations to get the best bang for your buck. If you can stretch your budget higher, our roundup on the best CPUs for gaming will give you entry-level, mainstream, and premium options, while our extensive CPU benchmark hierarchy will show you how processors compare across several generations.

First, we need to define what “budget” is. For this guide, we’re considering CPUs under $200. That’s higher than previous versions of our rankings, but it reflects the reality of CPU prices today. The other consideration is RAM. DDR5 prices are stratospheric, and you’ll likely spend more on a kit of DDR5 than on your CPU if you build a PC from scratch today. We’ve included some DDR4 options, but the unfortunate reality is that DDR5 is now the standard. That adds a significant burden to any cheap CPU, and there isn’t any way around it.

If you’re looking for the go-to best cheap CPU, the Ryzen 5 7600X is what you’re after. It’s on a DDR5 platform, yes, but it also slots into AMD’s established AM5 socket that the company says it will support through at least 2027. It’s cheaper than AMD’s Ryzen 5 7600 at the time of writing, but you’ll need to set aside a bit of extra money for a cooler; AMD has long abandoned including boxed coolers in its mainstream lineup.

Going down a step, you can pick up Intel’s Core i5-12400F or AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600, both of which are available for around $150 and support DDR4 platforms. Both also come with a stock cooler in the box, saving you a bit of money.

Under $100, the options are few and far between — and by that, we mean there are really only two options: Intel’s Core i3-14100 and AMD’s Ryzen 5 5500.

Best Budget CPUs in 2026 at a Glance

Why you can trust 3DTested Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

Best Budget CPU ($150-$200):

1. AMD Ryzen 5 7600X

Best Budget CPU ($100-$150):

2. Intel Core i5-12400F

Best Alternative Budget CPU ($100-$150):

3. AMD Ryzen 5 5600

Best Entry-Level Budget CPU (<$100):

4. Intel Core i3-13100F

Best Budget APU:

5. AMD Ryzen 5 5600GT

Best Budget CPUs 2026

Best Budget CPU ($150-$200)

(Image credit: AMD)
Best Budget CPU ($150-$200)

Specifications

Architecture: Zen 4
Socket: AM5
Cores/Threads: 6 /12
Base Frequency: 4.7
Top Boost Frequency: 5.3
TDP: 105W

Reasons to buy

+
Class-leading single- and multi-thread
+
Higher boost frequencies
+
Reasonable price-per-core
+
Overclockable
+
DDR5 and PCIe Gen 4.0
+
iGPU

Reasons to avoid

-
Pricing
-
Requires beefy cooling
-
No bundled cooler
-
DDR5 only
-
Requires AM5 motherboard

AMD’s mainstream Ryzen 5 offering is usually too expensive for a list of the best budget CPUs, but the Ryzen 5 7600X has seen some price cuts over the past few years. If you’re spending more than $200 on one, you’re overspending, and at the time of writing, you can pick up the chip for $178.

The Ryzen 5 7600X is a 6-core/12-thread chip based on AMD’s Zen 4 architecture. It has a 105W TDP, with an optional 65W mode via AMD’s Eco setting, along with a maximum boost clock of 5.3 GHz and 38MB of combined L2 and L3 cache. It’s fully unlocked for overclocking, as are most of AMD’s chips, and you can get an automatic, dynamic boost in frequency via AMD’s Precision Boost Overdrive 2.

With AMD’s shift to include basic integrated graphics, you can get your rig up and running with just the Ryzen 5 7600X. In applications, the Ryzen 5 7600X marginally outclasses Intel’s competing Core i5-14400 in multi-threaded rankings for around $70 less, and it goes toe-to-toe with pricier chips like the Core i5-13600K in single-threaded performance. If you pair it with a discrete GPU, you’ll get around the same gaming performance as Intel’s Core i9-12900K at 1080p, which is impressive for a CPU around this price.

The downsides of the Ryzen 5 7600X are clear, however. It slots into the AM5 socket, which means you’ll need a 600- or 800-series motherboard that exclusively supports DDR5. You’ll also need to pick up your own cooler. The Ryzen 5 7600X isn’t too demanding on thermals with a 105W TDP, however, so a CPU cooler around $20 to $30 should be plenty to keep it cool.

If you’re focused solely on gaming, AMD’s Ryzen 5 7600X3D is nearly 25% faster at 1080p and available for around $200. Although you can buy it from third-party sellers for a higher price, it’s only available at retail pricing from Micro Center, however.

Read More: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X review

Best Budget CPU ($100-$150)

(Image credit: Intel)

2. Intel Core i5-12400F

Best Budget CPU ($100-$150)

Specifications

Architecture: Alder Lake
Socket: LGA 1700
Cores/Threads: 6 (6P + 0E) / 12
Base Frequency: 2.5
Top Boost Frequency: 4.4
TDP: 65W / 117W

Reasons to buy

+
Strong gaming performance
+
Support for DDR4
+
Support for PCIe 5.0
+
Single-threaded performance
+
Sufficient bundled cooler

Reasons to avoid

-
No integrated graphics
-
No CPU core overclocking
-
Limited memory overclocking

At $149, the graphics-less Core i5-12400F is a solid choice. This chip is slightly faster than the alternative in this class, the Ryzen 5 5600 listed below, in both gaming and productivity work. The 12400F's connectivity features and more modern platform are the big selling points, though. If you're looking for support for more modern interfaces, like PCIe 5.0, DDR5 and DDR4, this chip makes even more sense — AMD's Ryzen 5 5600 only supports DDR4 and PCIe 4.0.

The Core i5-12400F comes with six P-cores and 12 threads, but it lacks E-cores. In contrast, its successor, the 13400F, comes with four E-cores to add more performance in threaded workloads. The 12400F has a 2.5 GHz base clock and boosts up to 4.4 GHz. The chip also comes with 18 MB of L3 cache and has a 65W PBP (base) and 117W MTP (peak) power rating.

The Core i5-12400F drops into the cheap and plentiful Socket 1700 ecosystem, so 600- and 700-series boards are fine. Naturally, a B-series model will be the best logical pairing for this class of chip. These come in either DDR4 or DDR5 flavors, so be sure to match your motherboard to the type of RAM you choose to use.

The Core i5-12400F also comes with a competent bundled cooler, but we always recommend stepping up to a more capable third-party model, some of which can be found for as low as $20 if you're particularly price sensitive. All in all, the Core i5-12400F at this price point is a solid chip for a budget system.

If you can step up your budget a touch, Intel’s new Core Ultra 5 225F is faster in both gaming and productivity workloads for $145. The chip itself is cheaper, but you’ll need a motherboard with the newer LGA 1851 socket, along with a kit of pricey DDR5 memory.

Read More: Intel Core i5-12400F Review

Best Alternative Budget CPU ($100-$150)

(Image credit: AMD)
Best Alternative Budget CPU ($100-$150)

Specifications

Architecture: Zen 3
Socket: AM4
Cores/Threads: 6 / 12
Base Frequency: 3.7GHz
Top Boost Frequency: 4.6GHz
TDP: 65W

Reasons to buy

+
Competent gaming and application performance
+
Solid upgrade path for Ryzen 1000 owners
+
Bundled CPU Cooler
+
Overclockable
+
Broad support with 300-series motherboards

Reasons to avoid

-
No integrated GPU

The $107 AMD Ryzen 5 5600 delivers a solid blend of performance in both gaming and productivity applications, bringing a new level of value to the Zen 3 lineup. If you're fine sticking with a previous-gen AM4 motherboard, the Ryzen 5 5600 makes a great budget build. The primary trade-off for the AM4 platform is that you're limited to DDR4, and you don't have access to PCIe 5.0, but this isn't a problem for most users at this price point. However, the Core i5-12400F is a better deal if you're looking for DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 support.

The Ryzen 5 5600 also makes an absolutely unbeatable budget chip if you're updating a first-gen Ryzen system. The 5600 unseats the Ryzen 5 5600X, a long-time favorite. The 5600X is only a mostly imperceptible ~1% faster in gaming and multi-threaded PC work than the non-X model, but provides a 4% advantage in single-threaded work.

You can find the six-core 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600 at $107, a deep discount brought on by competitive pressure from Intel. In fact, our testing shows that the Ryzen 5 5600 generally matches the gaming performance of its more expensive sibling, the ~$200 Ryzen 7 5800X. That makes the 5600 an incredibly well-rounded chip that can handle gaming well, from competitive-class performance with high refresh rate monitors to multi-tasking gaming workloads like streaming, while also serving up more than enough performance for day-to-day productivity apps. As with all AMD CPUs for gaming, you can fully overclock the CPU.

The Ryzen 5 5600 has a 3.7 GHz base and 4.6 GHz boost clock. The chip also has a 65W TDP rating, so it runs cool and quiet. Existing AMD owners with a 500-series motherboard will be happy, as the 5600X drops right into existing 500-, 400-, and 300-series motherboards. If you need a new motherboard to support the chip, AMD's AM4 motherboards are plentiful and relatively affordable, with the B-series lineup offering the best overall value for this class of chip.

Read More: AMD Ryzen 5 5600 Review

Best Entry-Level Budget CPU (<$100)

(Image credit: Intel)
Best Entry-Level Budget CPU (<$100)

Specifications

Architecture: Raptor Lake
Socket: LGA 1700
Cores/Threads: 4 (4P + 0E) / 8
Base Frequency: 3.4
Top Boost Frequency: 4.5
TDP: 60W / 89W

Reasons to buy

+
Strong gaming performance
+
Support for DDR4
+
Support for PCIe 5.0
+
Single-threaded performance
+
Sufficient bundled cooler

Reasons to avoid

-
No integrated graphics
-
Comparatively slow in threaded applications
-
No CPU core overclocking
-
Limited memory overclocking

The graphics-less Core i3-13100F is a shoo-in for the best budget CPU in its price class. This chip delivers exceptional gaming performance along with good enough performance in productivity applications, given its price point. The problem is finding it in stock. Most retailers are out of stock, but you can find the newer Core i3-14100F for around $100. The silicon is very similar, with the newer 14th-Gen version coming in a slightly higher boost clock.

The Core i3-13100 comes with six P-cores and 12 threads that operate at a 3.4 GHz base and 4.5 GHz boost clock rate, but it doesn't come with E-cores for background tasks as the Core i5 models do. It also comes with 12 MB of L3 cache. The 13100 has a 60W / 89W processor base/max turbo power, 16 PCIe 5.0 lanes and four PCIe 4.0 lanes, and support up to DDR4-3200 and DDR5-4800 MT/s (caveats apply to DDR5 support). Intel's non-K models don't allow overclocking of the CPU cores, but they do support memory overclocking.

The Core i3-13100F also comes with Intel's new improved cooler, saving you some cash. Like the non-F model, the Core i3-13100F comes with a 60W PBP (base) and 89W MTP (peak) power rating, so it's easy to cool with the included cooler.

Intel's Raptor Lake drops into Socket 1700 motherboards from the 600-series or 700-series, including the Z-, H-, and B-series boards.

Read More: Intel Core i3-13100F Review

Best Budget APU

(Image credit: AMD)
Best Budget APU

Specifications

Architecture: Zen 3
Socket: AM4
Cores/Threads: 6/12
Base Frequency: 3.9GHz
Top Boost Frequency: 4.4GHz
TDP: 65W

Reasons to buy

+
Stellar price-to-performance ratio
+
Faster Zen 3 CPU cores
+
Passable 1080p, solid 720p
+
Excellent power consumption and efficiency
+
Great overclocking headroom
+
Bundled cooler
+
Compatible with some AM4 motherboards

Reasons to avoid

-
PCIe 3.0 connectivity

The Ryzen 5 5600GT steps into the arena as the value champ for APUs, which are chips with strong enough integrated graphics that they don't require a discrete GPU for light gaming — just be sure you're willing to accept lowered quality settings. The Ryzen 5 5600GT is a refreshed version of the Ryzen 5 5600G, which was our previous pick in this slot. They’re the same CPU minus a slight bump in clock speed, but whereas the Ryzen 5 5600G is out of stock at most retailers, you can actually buy the Ryzen 5 5600GT.

At $150, the Ryzen 5 5600GT gives you 96% of the gaming performance on integrated graphics than its more expensive sibling, the $208 Ryzen 7 5700G, but for 28% less cash. Our testing shows that its level of performance makes it the best value APU on the market. As long as you're willing to sacrifice fidelity and resolution and keep your expectations in check, the Ryzen 5 5600GT's Vega graphics have surprisingly good performance in gaming.

The 5600GT's Vega graphics served up comparatively great 1280x720 gaming across numerous titles in our tests, but options become more restricted at 1080p. Of course, you can get away with 1080p gaming, but you'll need to severely limit the fidelity settings with most titles.

With eight cores and 16 threads that operate at a 3.6 GHz base and boost up to 4.6 GHz, the Ryzen 5 5600GT also offers solid performance for its price point in standard desktop PC applications. The chip also comes with a bundled Wraith Stealth cooler, sweetening the value prop, and drops into existing 500-series and some 400-series motherboards, though support on the latter will vary by vendor.

Read More: AMD Ryzen 5 5600G Review

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief
  • rwinches
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information. Try >=$200 graphics cards which could include some of the good used cards that are offered now. If you are going to add a discrete graphics card then the price of the GPU needs to be factored in which would mean the 2400G would be included. So that might mean a smaller CPU test group and a two part series, but the plus would be a much improved takeaway.
    Reply
  • Shumok
    I think the only sensible options out of the group are the i3-8100, 2200G, or G5400.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    21117513 said:
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information.
    Because the main objective of a CPU benchmark is to showcase the best possible performance that can be extracted from the CPUs being tested. The easiest way of achieving that is to simply throw the most powerful GPU currently available at it to produce results that will remain relevant for as long as the GPU being used remains relevant instead of testing multiple GPUs to find the cheapest one that doesn't bottleneck the fastest CPU being tested each time benchmark results get compiled (which would yield very similar frame rates anyway) and will be obsolete with nobody wanting to use it as a performance comparison reference as soon as the next GPU generation launches.

    Also, if AMD gets it its way, we'll be having 1080-class performance for ~$250 by this time next year. Most people building today will still have their i3-8100 or whatever else they buy by then. It is silly to limit GPUs only to the level of performance that currently makes economic sense as performance, especially when process shrinks are about to yield a massive bump in performance per buck.
    Reply
  • Dugimodo
    And why can't you understand that all those results would be the same so you couldn't tell which CPU was better.
    In order to compare relative CPU performance you need to remove any other bottlenecks.

    If you want balance, check a CPU comparison and also a separate GPU comparison and pick one of each that offer comparable FPS results in the same tests. Testing these CPUs with a budget graphics card and getting 1-5 fps variance will tell you nothing.

    And yes it does matter, what is true today may not be true tomorrow so the more headroom your components have for your target FPS the better.
    Reply
  • Gillerer
    If you want to test the "maximum performance" of a CPU, you use a multitude of number-crunching benchmarks. It's idiotic to use games to do so - especially since you need to employ unrealistic setups in order to get meaningful differences between CPUs. Either you have a way over the top GPU, or way underwhelming graphics settings/resolution - both uncharacteristic of what an actual gamer on the specific budget would use. It's disingenuous to present those results as if they actually had any connect to the experience of playing the game.

    Why use an unsuitable tool to test CPUs?

    Answer: Most non-professional technology enthusiasts are very interested in game performance. Being able to (artificially) produce gaming benchmarks that indicate large differences between CPUs is one way to increase view counts. After all, many people reading the article won't be paying any attention to the fact that the game benchmarks are supposed to be read as "maximum performance" CPU benchmarks - they'll just take away the FPS numbers and think they'll see similar results.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    21118189 said:
    If you want to test the "maximum performance" of a CPU, you use a multitude of number-crunching benchmarks. It's idiotic to use games to do so
    Different games stress CPUs differently and have different levels of optimization, same goes for drivers so performance in games can't be taken as a given based on "number-crunching" result just as results in one number-crunching benchmark aren't necessarily representative of performance in other number-crunching workloads. If you want to know the best-case performance that can be expected of a CPU in any given game, you have to test that specific game, just like you have to test specific applications if you want to know the performance in that application.

    With a lower-end GPU, you can't tell if the FPS is being limited by the CPU or GPU, which makes the result worthless as a CPU benchmark.
    Reply
  • gasaraki
    21117513 said:
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information. Try >=$200 graphics cards which could include some of the good used cards that are offered now. If you are going to add a discrete graphics card then the price of the GPU needs to be factored in which would mean the 2400G would be included. So that might mean a smaller CPU test group and a two part series, but the plus would be a much improved takeaway.

    Because this a a CPU performance ranking, NOT best CPU at gaming for the money ranking.

    Reply
  • BulkZerker
    And again upgradeability is glossed over, as is motherboard prices (or rather, what you get for the money you spend).
    Reply
  • madmatt30
    Not entirely sure why the g5400 gets an 8/10 same as the Ryzen 2200g??

    $2 less, inferior in every single way imo.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    21118606 said:
    Not entirely sure why the g5400 gets an 8/10 same as the Ryzen 2200g??

    $2 less, inferior in every single way imo.
    $100 vs $70 ($96 vs $64 on Amazon) is $30 less for the G5400.
    Reply