Tom’s Hardware has tested dozens of processors to find the best CPU for gaming. Our list of 2026 CPU gaming benchmarks currently comprises 17 of the most demanding titles available on the market, which we run each gaming processor through to see the chips that come out on top. We select our picks based on the data in our CPU benchmark hierarchy, so all of the CPUs below are backed by hundreds of hours of real-world, hands-on testing where we gather extensive data on how a CPU performs and behaves while gaming. If you want a broader look at the CPU market, our AMD vs. Intel article shows you where the current CPU duopoly stands, while our CPU buying guide can help you narrow down the best processor for you.

Now in the back half of the year, we don’t expect major new releases from AMD or Intel. AMD has been on a tear with refreshes, particularly among X3D CPUs. We recently reviewed the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition, AMD’s first CPU with 3D V-Cache on both CCDs, and it’s the most powerful chip from Team Red currently available. It’s earned a spot on this list, though the (much cheaper) Ryzen 9 9950X3D isn’t far behind in overall performance.

We’ve also seen the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, which is technically the fastest gaming processor on the market, as you can see in our Ryzen 7 9850X3D review. However, we’ve kept the base Ryzen 7 9800X3D as our top recommendation for the best CPU for gaming due to its price. It’s only marginally behind the refreshed model (about 3% on average), and much cheaper. For most gamers, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D makes more sense.

Intel has seen a recent boost in gaming performance with Arrow Lake Refresh, and both the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and Core Ultra 7 270K Plus have earned spots on our list. AMD dominates in gaming at the moment, however. Our sights are set on Intel’s next-gen Nova Lake chips for a big gaming boost from Team Blue, as well as the rumored ‘Raptor Lake Next’ lineup that’s supposedly arriving early next year.

For the rest of the year, we have the Ryzen 7 7700X3D and Ryzen 7 5800X3D 10th Anniversary Edition to look forward to, which are arriving in July and June, respectively. We don’t anticipate they’ll make a major impact on our rankings here, but we plan on reviewing both CPUs as soon as they’re available.

In addition to the fastest CPUs from AMD and Intel, we’ve included a few DDR4 options on this list. The price of DRAM and NAND flash has made building even a budget PC prohibitively expensive, so DDR4 platforms are a great way to save money. Vendors are signaling a shift back toward DDR4 platforms at the moment, so we may reconsider some older CPUs for our rankings as pricing and availability allows.

Here are the gaming CPUs we recommend buying. We have a shortlist of the top options and some alternatives below, but you can click the ‘More’ links to read our thoughts about a particular CPU and where it stands in the current market.

Prime Day Exceptional CPU deals

Here are our standout CPU deals from the Prime Day event, which is currently taking place. See our best overall picks below.

Best CPU for Gaming in 2026 at a glance (more info below):

The list below is for the best CPUs for gaming, while the best budget CPUs can help you find a cheap chip. Processors benefit from the best thermal paste, so check out our guide if you're shopping for a new processor. But if you're after the best CPU for gaming, you're in the right place.

Best CPU for Gaming Benchmarks

We rank all the Intel and AMD processors based on our in-depth CPU benchmarks hierarchy. You can see some of those numbers in the charts above, including CPU overclock performance results (marked as PBO for AMD processors). We're currently retesting all of these processors with the Nvidia RTX 5090, but only the first four slides have that testing. The remainder are historical testing results with the RTX 4090, which we'll remove once we have fully retested all of the gaming CPUs with the RTX 5090 for our benchmarks. This group of results comprises only the chips that have passed through our newest test suite. Additionally, the tables in our CPU benchmark hierarchy include rankings based on past CPU benchmarks and breakdowns of single- and multi-threaded performance in productivity applications across a broad spate of processors. Finally, be aware that the pricing in the charts above can fluctuate.

Quick Shopping Tips

When choosing the best CPU for gaming in 2026, consider the following:

• You can't lose with AMD or Intel: As noted in our AMD vs. Intel feature, AMD tends to make the best all-around CPU for gaming for mainstream PCs lately, but both offer compelling performance options at any given price point.
• Eight cores is sufficient for gaming: If you’re looking at a pricey flagship, you’re likely wasting some money if gaming is your primary focus. You can game on as little as a quad-core CPU, but performance scaling really falls off past eight cores.
• Budget platform costs: You never want to pair a strong CPU with a weak GPU, RAM, and storage. Right now, it’s especially important to consider platform costs, however. DDR5 prices are peaking, and you’ll need to factor in the cost of DDR5 and a new motherboard if you’re coming from an older socket like AM4.
• Overclocking isn’t for everyone, but if you follow our How to Overclock a CPU guide, you can scrape out extra performance gains.

Best CPU for Gaming 2026 - $300 to $400

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D technically isn’t the fastest gaming chip on the market any more. That title goes to the new Ryzen 7 9850X3D, though the victory is marginal. As you can read in our Ryzen 7 9850X3D review, AMD’s latest X3D offering pushes ahead by 3.3% on average. Despite a minor uplift, we’re still recommending the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. With prices as they currently are, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is only 3.3% faster despite costing around 6% more than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D.

This chip really has no peer in the market outside of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D — the Ryzen 7 9800X3D delivers outstanding gaming performance, beating Intel's fastest gaming chip, the $469 Core i9-14900K, by 30% in our test suite. The 9800X3D is also almost unbelievably 35% faster than the current-gen Intel flagship, the $560 Core Ultra 9 285K. The stock Ryzen 7 9800X3D's 1% low frame rates (a good smoothness indicator) also deliver an exceptionally smooth gaming experience, benefiting gamers even in GPU-limited scenarios.

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D has eight cores and 16 threads that operate at a 4.7 GHz base and 5.2 GHz boost clock rate. The chip employs AMD's 3D V-Cache tech with a new spin, which places a 3D-stacked SRAM chiplet underneath the die to deliver an incredible 96MB of L3 cache to great effect. AMD moved the L3 cache chiplet from the top to the bottom of the compute die this generation. That gives the integrated heat spreader (IHS) direct access to the compute die, allowing for more thermal headroom, and in turn, higher clock speeds. The end result is a comparatively low-power chip that delivers incredible gaming performance and comparable productivity performance to other eight-core models on the market.

3D V-Cache previously came with trade-offs in the productivity department, but that’s not the case with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. Still, 3D V-Cache doesn’t provide a performance benefit in every game, and the performance benefit is less pronounced as your display resolution climbs.

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D has much lower power consumption than the Intel competition, making it a far cooler processor that won't require as expensive accommodations, like a beefy cooler, motherboard, and power supply. It also takes particularly well to undervolting, which is easy to accomplish with AMD’s Curve Optimizer. That means the 9800X3D delivers top-notch gaming performance and a cooler, quieter, and less expensive system than you'll get with an Ultra 9 or Core i9.

Read: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review

The $305 Ryzen 7 9700X had a rough initial product launch, but AMD's targeted firmware and operating system improvements have changed the picture tremendously, allowing the chip to place much higher on our CPU benchmark hierarchy (head there for the most up-to-date gaming benchmarks). Combined with lower-than-launch pricing, the Ryzen 7 9700X is a strong contender, tying Intel's Core i9-14900K in gaming and beating the Core i7-14700K. That's not to mention that it beats Intel's entire lineup of Arrow Lake processors as well. Now, all of those processors offer faster performance in heavily-threaded productivity applications than the 9700X, but when it comes to a pure gaming experience, the 9700X either ties or beats all current Intel competitors.

The Ryzen 7 9700X has eight Zen 5 cores with 16 threads that operate at a 3.8 GHz base and 5.5 GHz boost clock. The chip has a 65W TDP, though AMD retroactively added a 105W TDP option you can select in the BIOS that helps boost performance in productivity applications. It's covered by the warranty, as well. With either setting, the 9700X has comparatively tame power consumption, so it is an easy chip to cool. You'll have to buy your own cooler for the processor, though.

The Ryzen 7 9700X drops into socket AM5 motherboards, and B-series motherboards make the most sense for this class of chip. B850 and B840 motherboards get AMD's latest chipset with features like mandatory PCIe 5.0 support on the top M.2 slot and better availability for features like Wi-Fi 7. However, the Ryzen 7 9700X will still work with the older B650 chipset if you can find a board on sale.

Read: Ryzen 5 9700X Review

The $350 Core Ultra 7 270K Plus performs like a flagship CPU, but it costs about half as much. In games, it narrowly outclasses the Core i7-14700K and offers a 2.4% boost over the competing Ryzen 7 9700X. AMD’s last-gen Ryzen 7 7800X3D still offers around a 10% boost over the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, but it’s also around $50 to $80 more expensive depending on sales.

It’s a solid gaming CPU, and certainly a better recommendation than the Core i7-14700K given prices right now. Compared to the Ryzen 7 9700X, things are tighter. The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus gains an edge with productivity performance. Short of the 9950X, it’s at the top of our multithreaded performance rankings, more than doubling the performance of the Ryzen 7 9700X.

On the gaming front, it supports Intel’s new Binary Optimization Tool, which offers an average of an 8% improvement in gaming performance based on our testing. It’s only available in a limited number of games at the moment, but Intel says it plans to support the feature with updates in the future.

For specs, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is close to the 285K. It comes with 24 cores and threads, split across eight Lion Cove P-cores and 16 Darkmont E-cores. The P-cores boost up to 5.4 GHz and the E-cores can climb to 4.7 GHz. Across the CPU, you get a total of 76 MB of combined L2 and L3 cache. It comes with a 125W TDP and 250W MTP. Critically, the Core Ultra 270K Plus also comes with a 900 MHz boost in die-to-die frequency and 400 MHz boost in fabric frequency compared to stock Arrow Lake chips.

The Core Ultra 7 270K Plus slots into existing 800-series motherboards with the LGA 1851 socket. This is an unlocked chip, so if you want to get the full benefits of overclocking, you’ll need a Z890 board. However, it’ll still work with H- and B-series motherboards, just without CPU overclocking support.

Read: Core Ultra 7 270K Plus Review

Mid-Range Best CPU for Gaming - $200 to $300

Intel has returned to gaming prominence with its Arrow Lake Refresh CPUs, and nowhere is that clearer than with the $220 Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. It’s priced like a budget CPU at $220, but it can perform as well (and sometimes even better) than chips that cost twice as much. It doesn’t dominate the gaming charts in the same way as AMD’s X3D offerings, but at this price, it doesn’t need to. It offers marginally better performance than AMD’s competing six-core Ryzen 5 9600X in games while running the tables with application performance.

On average, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is 1% faster than the Ryzen 5 9600X at 1080p, and 9% faster than the 245K. It’s functionally identical, but Intel’s new iBOT feature allows the chip to hold some solid leads in certain titles. For instance, it’s 10% ahead of the 9600X in Cyberpunk 2077. Even in a non-iBOT title like Doom: The Dark Ages, the 250K Plus leads by 12%. There are still some games that struggle with the unique Arrow Lake architecture like F1 2024, but the losses are less pronounced with the souped-up Arrow Lake Refresh chips compared to the stock offerings.

The application performance is what really stands out with the 250K Plus, however. With 18 cores, it outpaces the Core i7-13700K, nearly matches the Core i7-14700K, and more than doubles the performance of the Ryzen 5 9600X in multithreaded applications. In single-threaded applications, it beats the Ryzen 5 9600X by 6%.

Although you get 18 cores, they’re split between six Lion Cove performance cores and 12 Darkmont efficient cores. The P-cores climb up to 5.3 GHz, while the E-cores top out at 4.6 GHz. The CPU comes with a combined 60 MB of L2 and L3 cache, along with a TDP of 125W and a MTP of 159W. Like all Arrow Lake chips, it doesn’t support Hyper-Threading, so you get 18 total threads.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus slots into existing motherboards with the LGA 1851 socket. It’s unlocked for overclocking, so a Z-series motherboard is an ideal pairing. However, Intel increased the die-to-die frequency and the fabric frequency out of the box, and you’ll see those improvements in action on B- and H-series motherboards, as well. It’s locked to DDR5 memory, unlike Raptor Lake and Alder Lake platforms, and it officially supports speeds up to 7200MT/s.

Read: Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Review

The $230 Ryzen 5 7600X3D is currently the best value gaming CPU you can get right now, though it trades performance in other areas to reach that status. It's just 4.5% slower than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D based on our testing, giving you most of the performance of AMD's coveted 3D V-Cache in games without the extra cost.

In games, it outclasses more expensive CPUs with ease, including the Ryzen 7 9700X, and averaged just 65W of power draw during our gaming tests. Outside of games, however, the Ryzen 5 7600 X3D struggles. The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is more than twice as fast in multithreaded performance, and in single-threaded performance, even the base Ryzen 5 7600X is around 13% faster.

The lagging productivity performance makes sense. The Ryzen 5 7600X3D is a six-core / 12-thread chip, so it has limited multithreaded potential, and it only clocks up to 4.7 GHz. The limited specs give AMD room to cram 102 MB of combined L2/L3 cache on the die, however, which comes with a sizeable boost in gaming performance. Compared to the base Ryzen 5 7600X, the X3D version is 22% faster despite coming in at lower peak clocks and power draw.

You can slot the Ryzen 5 7600X3D into socket AM5, which is available on 600- and 800-series motherboards, though the latter may require a BIOS update. Memory and CPU overclocking is available on both B- and X-series chipsets; however, the Ryzen 5 7600X3D has a locked multiplier, so the only overclocking you can access is through AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive, or PBO.

Read: Ryzen 5 7600X3D review

Highest Performance Best CPU for Gaming - $400+

How do you improve upon a CPU that already claims a dominating position in gaming and productivity workloads? You add more cache, of course. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is powerful, expensive, and hungry for wattage, but it’s the best of the best if you want top-shelf gaming and application performance. It throws value out the window, and it’s only marginally better than the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, but it is still better.

Based on our testing, it’s about 3.9% ahead of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D in multithreaded applications, and in lockstep in gaming at 1080p. Compared to Intel’s Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is 9% ahead in multithreaded performance and 23% ahead in average gaming performance. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D delivers a better value on the gaming front, and the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is a monster productivity chip at a third of the price of the 9950X3D2. But the magic trick of this chip is that it can do both without breaking a sweat.

Under the hood, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is similar to the Ryzen 9 9950X3D. It’s a 16-core / 32-thread chip packing AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, and it tops out with a 5.6 GHz boost clock; just 100MHz behind the 9950X3D. As the name suggests, this processor is unique because it uses AMD’s 3D V-Cache on both CCDs. Both eight-core CCDs have 32 MB of onboard cache, plus an additional 64 MB chunk placed under the cores, giving you a total of 192 MB of L3 cache.

The extra cache slightly accelerates multithreaded performance overall, though only by around 4%. There are specific workloads where the advantage is more present, with some data science workloads showing performance gains in the realm of 26% over the Ryzen 9 9950X3D. Those specific workstation-class workloads are where the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 earns its stripes.

Otherwise, it’s the chip to buy because you simply want the best, no matter what the cost or how marginal the improvements are. It slots into existing AM5 motherboards, and it’s best suited for newer 800-series chipsets. AMD officially supports memory speeds up to DDR5-5600, though we find that DDR5-6000 is the sweet spot for Zen 5 CPUs.

Prices have dropped since release, though the 9950X3D2 is still expensive. It launched at $1,000, but you can find the chip for around $900 now.

Read: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Review

The prior-gen $469 Core i9-14900K is now selling for all-time low pricing, primarily because the newer $560 Core Ultra 9 285K has arrived to take its place. However, the Core Ultra 9 285K is actually slower than the 14900K in gaming, so it isn't a suitable replacement. The new Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is marginally slower based on our testing, as well. Even in the face of Intel’s 200S Boost update, which was meant improve gaming performance, the competitive landscape remains unchanged. In our testing, the Core Ultra 9 285K gained an average of 7% from the update, which means it’s still slower than the Core i9-14900K.

You should be aware that the much more economically-priced 14700K (listed above) is only 2% slower than the 14900K in gaming but costs over $100 less. The Ryzen 7 9700X, also listed above, is also less expensive and effectively ties the 14900K in gaming.

However, there are Intel fans willing to pay extra for the absolute most gaming performance they can get from an Intel platform. Also, the 14900K does offer more multi-threaded horsepower than the 14700K and 9700X, which could be useful if you game, stream, and record simultaneously or do other heavy multi-tasking while gaming. Just make sure that your use case justifies the extra cost.

The 14900K sports leading-edge connectivity, supporting DDR4-3200 or up to DDR5-5600 memory, along with 16 lanes of PCIe 5.0 and an additional four lanes of PCIe 4.0 from the chip for M.2 SSDs.

The chip comes with eight P-cores that support Hyper-Threading and 16 single-threaded E-cores for a total of 32 threads. The P-cores have a 3.2 GHz base, and peak frequencies reach an amazing 6.0 GHz with Turbo Boost Max 3.0 (this feature is only active on P-cores). Meanwhile, the E-cores have a 2.4 GHz base and stretch up to 4.4 GHz via the standard Turbo Boost 2.0 algorithms. The chip also has 36MB of L3 cache and 32MB of L2.

This 14900K has a 125W PBP (base) and 253W MTP (peak) power rating, but we recorded considerably lower power consumption than its prior-gen counterpart. You'll need to buy a capable cooler for the chip, and you'll also need either a 700-series or 600-series motherboard. Like other Raptor Lake Refresh chips, you can find DDR4 and DDR5 motherboards, though you’ll need to go with a DDR5 board for the highest performance.

The lower price of DDR4 might entice some gamers, but you'll lose anywhere from 5-8% of gaming performance with higher-end Intel chips. You can step up to the much more expensive DDR5 if you need access to more memory throughput and, thus, every bit of performance possible.

Beyond specs, the Core i9-14900K was at the center of a years-long controversy concerning instability. An error in the microcode (CPU firmware) meant the Core i9-14900K would degrade faster than expected, starting with instability in games. Intel has rectified the issue with microcode 0x12F, so make sure you update your BIOS immediately if you pick up Intel’s last-gen flagship

Read: Intel Core i9-14900K Review

Best Budget CPU Pick - $100 to $150

The $164 Ryzen 5 7600X is an attractive budget CPU at its new price, forced down by Intel's new Arrow Lake Refresh chips. It’s marginally slower than the Ryzen 5 9600X, but also marginally cheaper – the Ryzen 5 7600X offers about 90% of the performance of the Ryzen 5 9600X for 94% of the price. It’s a slightly worse value, but it’s still a good option to keep in mind, especially if you find it on sale. The Ryzen 5 7600, sans X, is available at around the same price. We’ve yet to see it drop below the Ryzen 5 7600X, however.

With the 7600X, you get six cores and 12 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture, clocked at 4.7GHz with boost speeds up to 5.3GHz. Unlike the Ryzen 5 9600X, the Zen 4-based version comes with a TDP of 105W. Cooling it shouldn’t be an issue, and you’re free to run in AMD’s 65W Eco mode through the Ryzen Master software.

The Ryzen 5 7600X slots into AM5 motherboards, including 600- and 800-series chipsets, and it supports PCIe 5.0. DDR5 is required, which is a tough pill to swallow at this bang-for-your-buck price point, but it’s hard to avoid soaring RAM prices.

Read: Ryzen 5 7600X review

The $135 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 base for a 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. You also have a limited runway for upgrades, as the fastest gaming CPUs on AM4 – the Ryzen 7 5700X3D and Ryzen 7 5800X3D – have reached end of life.

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.

Our testing shows that the Ryzen 5 5600 generally matches the gaming performance of its more expensive sibling, the ~$230 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 chip.

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.

Prices for the Ryzen 5 5600 have drifted upward as stock depletes, but that’s offset by platform costs. In addition to low prices on AM4 motherboards, the Ryzen 5 5600 is limited to DDR4. High DDR5 prices are a significant roadblock to opting for a newer chip, as prices continue to surge. So it’s hard to recommend a newer budget CPU, even if it’ll net you higher performance. In the event you already have a kit of DDR5, the $189 Ryzen 5 7600 is a compelling option, and it includes AMD’s Wraith Stealth cooler.

Read: AMD Ryzen 5 5600 Review

Entry-Level Best CPU for Gaming - For gaming on integrated GPUs

The $268 Ryzen 7 8700G, AMD's flagship desktop APU, delivers the fastest socketed performance on the market from integrated graphics, bringing passable 1080p gaming to the desktop PC without a discrete graphics card, but its high price point relegates it to a niche audience.

In contrast, the $191 Ryzen 5 8600G delivers 90% of the 8700G's performance but for ~$80 less, making it a solid alternative for gaming systems that don't use a discrete GPU.

Naturally, you'll have to accept lower fidelity settings and be realistic about which titles can play at 1080p resolution. Still, AMD's Hyper-RX suite of features, which includes in-driver Radeon Super Resolution upscaling tech, frame generation with AMD Fluid Motion Frames (AFMF), Anti-Lag+, and Radeon Boost, helps boost performance at a slight cost to image quality. This new feature set, a first for AMD's iGPUs, is a boon for budget gamers.

The Ryzen 5 8600G has six Zen 4 CPU cores and the RDNA 3 GPU engine with eight CUs. The Ryzen 5 8600G drops into the AM5 platform, with value-focused B650 and A620 motherboards being the obvious best combination. These systems offer a new level of connectivity for AMD's APU processors, which were previously on the aging AM4 platform but require DDR5 memory. That adds some cost, so do a value analysis before selecting this processor. If you're looking for the lowest entry price possible with an APU, the Ryzen 5 5600G listed below slots in as the value alternative.

The Ryzen 7 8600G only supports 16 usable lanes of PCIe 4.0 connectivity, while other processors on the AM5 platform support PCIe 5.0. However, we don't feel this will impact this class of system.

More: AMD Ryzen 7 8700G and Ryzen 5 8600G Review

The Ryzen 5 5600G 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 5600G gives you 96% of the gaming performance on integrated graphics than its more expensive sibling, the Ryzen 7 5700G, but for 25% 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 5600G's Vega graphics have surprisingly good performance in gaming.

The 5600G'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 3.9 GHz base and boost up to 4.4 GHz, the Ryzen 5 5600G 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.

The Ryzen 5 5600G is nearly five years old, and as a result, it’s hard to find it in stock at a reasonable price. AMD updated this model with the Ryzen 5 5600GT in early 2024, which features identical silicon and a slight boost to clock speed, and you’ll generally find it for less at around $150.

If your budget is tight and you're looking to build a system for modest gaming, you should check out our Best Cheap CPU feature. Some of those chips can deliver passable gaming performance without a graphics card, and their prices start at just $55 (£40).

Read: AMD Ryzen 5 5600G Review

• MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
• MORE: AMD vs Intel
• MORE: Best Cheap CPUs
• MORE: Best CPUs for Workstations

AMD might be prepping another mainstream processor with 3D V-Cache, originally a premium feature aimed at gamers, if a new listing in the Eurasian Economic Union customs database is accurate. AMD's Ryzen 5 5500X3D discovered by @harukaze5719 promises to be the cheapest X3D processor from the company that will offer great single-thread performance, something that gamers want.

The listing in the EEU customers database does not guarantee that the product listed will ever be launched, so take the information about the Ryzen 5 5500X3D with a grain of salt for now. But truth be told, this is not the first mention of this CPU as blogger chi11eddog predicted the launch of a six-core Ryzen 5 5500X3D in late November 2023.

AMD's six-core Ryzen 5 5500X3D with 96 MB of L3 cache reportedly operates at 3.0 GHz – 4.0 GHz, so its single-thread performance will be similar to that of eight-core Ryzen 7 5700X3D (which has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz) and generally lower than that of other Ryzen 5000X3D processors with 3D V-Cache that feature boost clocks of 4.40 GHz – 4.50 GHz. However, this processor could be a fine choice for an inexpensive AM4 desktop aimed at gaming and applications that take advantage of ultra-large caches.

The listing in the customs database does not disclose the pricing of the upcoming Ryzen 5 5500X3D processor, though keeping in mind that the eight-core Ryzen 7 5700X3D can be purchased for $210, the six-core part should cost considerably less. 

Launching a new Zen 3-based CPU about four years after the release of the original Ryzen 5000-series parts may seem a bit odd, as most gamers would be inclined to choose a Zen 4 or Zen 5-based platform. However, it looks like AMD's partners have plenty of unsold AM4 motherboards, so AMD needs to keep the Ryzen 5000 family alive to let them sell these platforms. It also seems that AMD may have plenty of Ryzen 5000X3D processors in stock. The more expensive AM4 parts may not exactly find their customers as everyone who wanted a Ryzen 7 5800X3D has probably bought their processor years ago, so building cheaper Ryzen 5 5500X3D is a good way to sell off old silicon without decreasing average selling prices.

If you're looking for the best CPUs for gaming or one of the best budget CPUs, there are only two choices: AMD and Intel. That fact has spawned an almost religious following for both camps, and the resulting AMD vs Intel flamewars make it tricky to get unbiased advice about the best choice for your next processor. But in many cases, the answer is actually very clear: AMD's X3D chips dominate gaming performance, from the Ryzen 5 7600X3D up to the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2. For application performance, AMD still tops the charts with flagships, but Intel's recent Arrow Lake Refresh chips provide nearly the same level of performance under $300 based on the data in our CPU benchmark hierarchy.

This article covers the never-ending argument of AMD vs Intel desktop CPUs (we're not covering laptop or server chips). We judge the chips on nine criteria based on what you plan to do with your PC: pricing, specifications and features, gaming performance, productivity performance, driver support, power consumption, overclocking, chipset and socket support, and security, giving us a clear view of the state of the competition. Throughout each section, we'll also discuss the process nodes and architectures influencing the moving goalposts. However, each brand has its strengths and weaknesses, so which CPU brand you should buy depends mostly on what blend of features, price, and performance is important to you.

The latest 'Arrow Lake Core Ultra 200S series builds on Intel's hybrid architecture formula but leverages a new design philosophy that constrains gaming performance. However, the chips do provide strong performance in single- and multi-thread productivity workloads, along with improved energy efficiency. New refreshed chips like the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus shore up the gaming front and provide a big boost in productivity performance, as well.

AMD's answer is its Zen 5 Ryzen 9000 series. These chips debuted with a fizzle on the gaming front, but subsequent firmware and operating system updates have improved the overall performance significantly, making these chips the bang-for-the-buck leader for most users looking for a balanced system.

AMD's powerful gaming-optimized Ryzen 9000 "X3D" models utilize a breakthrough 3D chip-stacking tech to take the lead in gaming performance, as you can see in our Ryzen 9 9850X3D review that finds the 9850X3D to be the fastest gaming CPU on the planet, bar none. AMD has also leveraged this X3D tech with its older architectures to make incredibly value-centric gaming chips, like the Ryzen 5 5600X3D. The gains in gaming performance are phenomenal, so much so that the competition against Intel chips isn't even close, giving AMD a walk-in touchdown for gaming PCs.

Prime Day Exceptional CPU deals

Here are standout deals for Intel and AMD CPUs from the Prime Day event. Our comparison continues below.

AMD vs Intel: Which CPU is Best?

Comparing Intel vs AMD in 9 categories in 2026, AMD and Intel are in lockstep with a win in three categories each, with the brands coming in tied in two categories. Despite long-standing as the value alternative, AMD’s original Zen microarchitecture has kicked off a slow rise to the top. The Steam hardware survey now shows AMD only slightly behind Intel in market share, and from the Passmark database, AMD outpaced Intel in desktop market share for the first time last year.

Although the earlier years of Zen were met with an audacious Intel, that story quickly changed as AMD started to gain ground, particularly around the release of Zen 3. Intel was finally able to move onto its 10nm node after years of manufacturing challenges, as well as introduce a hybrid architecture in a desktop x86 CPU. Alder Lake, Raptor Lake, and Raptor Lake Refresh all maintain competitive positions against their Zen 3, Zen 4, and even Zen 5 counterparts, but Intel’s market dominance – and the price it demanded from it – has disappeared in desktops.

Fierce competition is good for everyone, but Intel didn’t maintain its trajectory, instead opting for a radically different architecture with Arrow Lake that ditched Hyper-Threading. In AMD’s camp, it doubled-down on the wildly successful 3D V-Cache, introducing a second generation of the technology that places additional cache below the compute die for more thermal headroom, and as a result, higher clock speeds.

Although Arrow Lake brings much-needed efficiency improvements to Intel’s desktop line-up, as well as great overclocking headroom on CPU cores and the memory subsystem, AMD dominates gaming performance with its X3D lineup, sometimes by as much as 30%. At the same time, AMD is able to match or exceed Intel’s productivity performance, despite how impressive the Arrow Lake architecture is from a technical perspective.

Broadly, AMD earns our recommendation for most people. It clearly leads in gaming performance with X3D CPUs, and despite stagnant specifications, AMD has continued to show architectural advantage in comparative performance scenarios. Intel has gained by some ground with the 270K Plus and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, which are both excellent processors are affordable prices. For now, however, AMD remains our go-to recommendation.

AMD vs Intel CPU Pricing and Value 2025

AMD has long stood as the value king, and although you can get a lot for your money with chips like the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, Intel has slid into the value position as AMD continues to rise in market share. Looking at like-for-like CPUs in the AMD vs Intel battle, the two are in lockstep on pricing within a margin of $20 to $30 in most cases, outside of sales.

For the current generation lineup, Intel’s Arrow Lake chips are slightly cheaper at the Core Ultra 9 and Core Ultra 7 levels, though only by $20. Factoring in sales, Arrow Lake ends up much cheaper. At the time of writing, for instance, the Core Ultra 9 285K is available for $500 while the Ryzen 9 9950X will run you $570.

The prices above are based on the average selling price of the main lineups from AMD and Intel over the past 60 days. Notably, these aren’t list prices, which aren’t reflective of what you can expect to spend, especially this late into a generation. As an example, the Core Ultra 7 265K launched at $395 while the Ryzen 7 9700X launched for $359. Now, however, Intel comes out slightly cheaper.

AMD leads in overall value for lower-end offerings like the Ryzen 5 9600X, but Intel isn't far behind with the recent Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. In gaming performance, you can see Intel is delivering better average frame rates, as well, though only with its newer Arrow Lake Refresh chips.

AMD and Intel flip positions when looking at last-gen options, with only the Core i9-14900K coming in slightly less than the Ryzen 9 7950X. Intel has clearly recognized the value proposition of the Core i5-14600K and Core i7-14700K, with both now selling for around the same price as their Arrow Lake counterparts.

Winner: Intel. Intel and AMD are more competitive on pricing than they’ve been in years. Intel comes out slightly ahead on value with lower-end SKUs, but value demands context. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D might be a worse value than the Core i5-14600K, but if you have $480 to spend on a CPU and want the best gaming performance, AMD’s X3D chip is right for you.

However, Intel shook things up massively with the 270K Plus and 250K Plus. Now, Intel is offering competitive gaming performance around $200 to $300 while pushing flagship-level application performance. For now, at least, Intel is in the driver's seat when it comes to overall value through Arrow Lake Refresh.

AMD vs Intel CPU Gaming Performance 2025

In the AMD vs Intel CPU gaming performance battle, AMD's X3D processors hold the lead in all critical price bands. Below, we have a wide selection of collective gaming performance measurements for the existing chips in the different price bands. You can see a much more holistic view in our CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy.

As you can see, AMD's standard 'Granite Ridge' Ryzen 9000 models take the lead over Intel's current-gen Core Ultra 200S 'Arrow Lake' processors, and the gaming optimized Ryzen 9000X3D chips, which cost more than the standard models, take an overwhelming lead, often by 30% or more.

Intel's current-gen Core Ultra 9 285K is the new flagship, but its unique tile-based (chiplet) design has a negative impact on gaming performance, so it isn't as fast as the prior-gen models in gaming. That leaves the Core i9-14900K as the fastest Intel gaming chip, and it often sells at a steep discount. The recent Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, however, is just marginally behind the Core i9-14900K, and it's available for around $350.

AMD's standard Ryzen 9000 models, like the flagship Ryzen 9 9950X, are faster in gaming than Intel's Core Ultra 200S series, but Intel's previous-gen 14900K holds the edge. However, AMD's X3D models, like the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, are the fastest gaming chips on the planet, beating Intel's current-gen chips by 30+%. These chips also deliver the full performance of the standard models in productivity workloads, eliminating the tradeoffs associated with the X3D models that we've seen in the past. The X3D models do come at a premium, but they justify their price tag with the fastest gaming performance money can buy.

Older X3D chips leverage AMD’s first-gen 3D V-Cache, which stacks the cache on top of the compute die rather than below, which is the case with the latest Zen 5 X3D offerings. That design limits thermal headroom, and in turn, clock speeds, so expect a dip in productivity performance if you aren’t using one of AMD’s latest X3D offerings.

Kicking your resolution up to 1440p and beyond typically pushes the bottleneck back to the GPU, so you won't gain as much from your CPU's gaming prowess. However, a bit of extra CPU gaming performance could pay off if you plan on updating your graphics card (see our best graphics cards) with a newer generation while keeping the rest of your system intact. We expect most builds in the mid-range to come with lesser GPUs, which generally serve as an equalizer in terms of CPU performance.

In terms of integrated graphics performance, there's no beating AMD. The company's current-gen Phoenix Point APUs offer the best performance with the 8700G and 8600G. We’ve seen even more capable APUs out of AMD with its mobile Strix Point offerings like the Ryzen AI Max 395, but Strix Point hasn’t made its way to desktop yet.

Winner: AMD. AMD's standard Ryzen 9000 models deliver solid performance in gaming, beating Intel's current-gen models, but they trail the previous-gen Intel chips. However, the Ryzen 9000X3D models take the unequivocal lead in gaming by massive margins, giving AMD an easy win in the gaming department. The previous-gen Raptor Lake Refresh models are a distant second in gaming performance, and they aren't as performant as the Ryzen 9000 models in productivity applications, making them a tough choice as an alternative.

AMD vs Intel Productivity and Content Creation Performance 2025

In the non-gaming performance battle of AMD vs Intel CPUs, Intel's Arrow Lake chips have made great strides against AMD's finest, but they fail to deliver a tangible enough lead over AMD's core-heavy models to make productivity performance a make-or-break buying decision. AMD leads in overall multi-threaded performance with its Ryzen 9 9950X3D and 9950X by a slim margin, but Intel keeps a solid grip on the lead in single-threaded applications. The new Arrow Lake Refresh CPUs don't radically change the performance picture overall, but they come in much less than AMD's Zen 5 competition.

Arrow Lake marks Intel's continuation of using a mixture of two types of cores for the mainstream desktop PC. The big performance cores (P-cores) are best for latency-sensitive work, giving Intel the uncontested lead in single-threaded applications. The efficiency cores (E-cores) step in to add some additional heft in threaded and background applications, which pays big dividends in heavily-threaded content creation and productivity applications.

In contrast, AMD continues to leverage its tried-and-true P-core only design, which also supports AVX-512, a big consideration for those who leverage powerful productivity applications that employ the high-performance instructions. Zen 5 brought a 512-bit data path for AVX instructions – Zen 4 used two 256-bit paths – which provides a massive performance advantage in applications that leverage AVX-512, even compared to Zen 4. Intel’s latest CPUs don’t support AVX-512 instructions.

Solid performance in single-threaded work equates to faster performance in all manner of workloads, particularly day-to-day applications that rely on snappy responsiveness from the processor. The Core 7 270K Plus has taken the uncontested lead in single-threaded performance across the full suite of our benchmarks, and it comes in at a mid-range price point. And on the multithreaded front, Intel is able to match the Ryzen 9 9950X despite the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus coming in at half the price.

Winner: Intel. Although AMD offers compelling productivity performance with its most expensive offerings, the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Core Ultra 5 250K Plus punch far above their weight class in productivity performance, easily delivering flagship performance at entry-level prices.

AMD vs Intel Processor Specifications and Features 2025

Modern Intel and AMD CPUs sport much different architectures, so comparing specifications directly is a fool’s errand in most cases. AMD has a traditional approach with a homogeneous core architecture that sports simultaneous multi-threading. Intel moved onto a heterogeneous architecture with Alder Lake, which it has maintained since, and it removed Hyper-Threading with Arrow Lake.

This departure in architecture means you can draw inaccurate conclusions from specs alone. For instance, Intel’s flagship Core Ultra 9 285K only has 24 threads compared to AMD’s 32 on the Ryzen 9 9950X. Despite that, the two chips offer competitive multi-threaded performance, as you can see in our performance results in the above section.

The cores and clocks aren’t as important as they once were, at least when comparing a Ryzen 9 to a Core Ultra 9, or a Ryzen 5 to a Core Ultra 5. Instead, there’s been a stark shift in focus toward cache in the face of 3D V-Cache. That’s the marquee feature AMD has been running on for the past few years, offering chart-dominating performance in games that Intel has yet to answer. Previously, 3D V-Cache came with a slight compromise to productivity performance due to clock speeds on eight-core parts and CCX-to-CCX latency on 12- and 16-core parts. AMD has rectified that issue with second-gen 3D V-Cache, however.

Apples-to-apples, Intel and AMD offer similar cache amounts when excluding X3D parts, though Intel more evenly distributes the cache between L2 and L3, while AMD focuses the lion’s share of cache in the last level. Intel is rumored to pack bLLC into its upcoming Nova Lake generation to answer 3D V-Cache. Intel currently deploys this style of cache packaging in its Clearwater Forest server chips, but it has yet to show up in a consumer CPU.

Winner: AMD. Intel has highlighted several features over the past several generations, from Thread Director to Intel APO and even the new iBOT feature, but these features have mainly served to bring Intel’s unique architectural design up to par. Meanwhile, AMD has pushed ahead with a big win in gaming due to 3D V-Cache, which only improved in its second generation. Add on top of that AVX-512 support, as well as a true 512-bit data path in Zen 5, and Team Red easily wins this category.

AMD vs Intel CPU Power Consumption and Heat 2025

When comparing AMD vs Intel CPU power and heat, the former's 4nm TSMC process node makes a big difference. Power consumption comes as a byproduct of design choices, like lithography and architecture. However, higher power consumption often correlates to more heat generation, so you'll need beefier coolers to offset the heat output of greedier chips.

Overall, Intel has reduced its power consumption from meme-worthy to an acceptable level, but it still consumes more power than Ryzen. Still, in aggregate, AMD's 4nm chips either consume less power or provide much better power-to-performance efficiency.

As you can see above, you'll get more work done per watt of energy consumed, which is a win-win, and AMD's cooling requirements aren't nearly as overbearing. Arrow Lake brings Intel more in-line with AMD, both when looking at peak power consumption and productivity efficiency. Even then, however, Intel’s latest offerings end up slightly ahead of AMD in overall power consumption, and slightly behind in over efficiency.

Winner: AMD. In judging AMD vs Intel CPU performance per watt, it's impossible to overstate the importance of having the densest process node paired with an efficient microarchitecture, and TSMC's 4nm and AMD's Zen 5 are the winning combination. The latest Ryzen processors consume less power than Intel on a power-vs-performance basis, even in the face of Arrow Lake.

Intel vs AMD CPU Overclocking 2025

There's no debate when you compare Intel vs AMD CPU overclocking. Intel offers the most overclocking headroom, meaning you can gain more performance over the baseline speed with Intel chips than you can with AMD's Ryzen processors. To learn more about overclocking, head to our How to Overclock a CPU guide.

Dynamic boosting algorithms and increasingly multi-threaded applications have offset some of the previous benefits of overclocking, at least for core clock speeds. With AMD’s current CPUs, and up to Raptor Lake Refresh for Intel, a modest all-core overclock generally won’t provide a performance benefit, and it could even reduce your performance, though only in lightly-threaded applications. The boosting algorithms can usually achieve higher speeds for these applications, with all-core overclocks running into a thermal wall before providing much of a boost.

However, for Intel, that changed with Arrow Lake. It ships with much higher thermal headroom than the last several Intel generations, shortening the gap between single-core boosts and all-core speeds. Intel now also provides more fine-grain control over clock speeds, with increments as low as 16MHz. Arrow Lake scales particularly well with high DDR5 speeds, offering a small performance edge if you’re able to secure a fast kit of memory.

AMD has taken a different approach. Rather than offering more granular control over overclocking, it has continued to invest in Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) as a one-click overclocking solution. In addition, AMD offers Curve Optimizer and Shaper, which allow you to easily undervolt your chip with a voltage offset across the frequency range.

Intel has an edge in overclocking, but it comes with a caveat. In order to overclock an Intel chip, you need to purchase an unlocked K-series processor as well as a Z-series motherboard. H- and B-series motherboards only support memory overclocking. Meanwhile, AMD supports overclocking on all of its modern CPUs, short of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and other Zen 3 chips sporting 3D V-Cache. AMD also supports CPU overclocking on B- and X-series chipsets, saving you some money.

Winner: Intel. Although CPU overclocking isn’t as prominent as it used to be, Team Blue holds the edge in this AMD vs Intel battle. You have more granular control over core overclocking, as well as additional fabric and memory overclocking features that can net higher performance on Arrow Lake. AMD has focused on making overclocking more accessible, but that also leaves enthusiasts with less room to play.

AMD vs Intel CPU Drivers, Software, and Firmware 2025

Over the past couple of years, both AMD and Intel have seen catastrophic firmware issues, which caused CPUs to fail, or in the worst cases, literally burn themselves up. In the most recent generation, we also saw hamstrung performance due to software issues from both AMD and Intel, though both have also released a string of microcode and driver updates to address these problems.

On the driver front, Intel and AMD are both stable. In the early days of Zen, we saw lopsided support for Intel’s latest architecture, and AMD’s smaller position in the market meant issues were more common and fixes took longer to arrive. That isn’t the case today. Broadly, Intel and AMD’s chipset drivers are stable, and issues that do arise are usually resolved through an update within a few days.

Firmware is a different story, and that’s been an unfortunate area of focus for AMD and Intel over the last couple of years. Intel was at the center of a years-long issue with instability on Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake Refresh chips, and in particular, the Core i9-13900K and Core i9-14900K. Reports of instability in games on these CPUs date back at least as far as early 2023, but Intel didn’t acknowledge them until mid-2024.

Intel released a microcode update in late 2024 that solved most instability problems, but as recently as September 2025, it’s continued to work on the issue.

In AMD’s camp, high-end Ryzen CPUs have burned themselves up in the socket, ruining both the chip and motherboard – twice, though for different reasons. In the first go, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D was operating at elevated voltages. An AGESA update shortly after reports started circulating capped the voltage at 1.3V, and there haven’t been any reports since.

With the release of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, a far larger number of reports started circulating, once again showing the burning on the CPU’s contact pads and in the motherboard socket. This issue was much messier than the original Ryzen 7 7800X3D, though the vast majority of reports came from the Ryzen 7 9800X3D paired with an ASRock motherboard. In this case, AMD shifted blame to ASRock. ASRock has reportedly solved the problem through BIOS updates, but new reports are still trickling out at a reduced cadence.

Winner: Tie. It’s hard to declare a winner in this category given the two major controversies Intel and AMD have faced over the past few years, both of which resulted in CPUs being ruined while supposedly operating within warrantied specifications.

Although it’s important to highlight these problems and the responses to them from AMD and Intel, they aren’t widespread issues. Neither triggered a proper recall.

AMD vs Intel Chipset and Socket Support 2025

An increasingly important aspect of choosing between Intel and AMD is the longevity of the chipset and socket of your motherboard. Although new generations bring new chipsets, AMD has set a new standard for socket support with AM4, which it appears to be carrying forward with AM5. Intel has responded in kind, supporting 12th-, 13th-, and 14th-gen chips on the same LGA1700 socket. However, it moved to the LGA1851 socket with the release of Arrow Lake, and it will move to the LGA1954 socket with the release of Nova Lake CPUs in late 2026.

AMD’s current commitment is to support the AM5 socket through 2027, but that timeframe could extend. With the release of Zen 4 and introduction of AM5, AMD originally only committed to support through 2025 before extending the timeframe with the release of Zen 5. With AMD’s current release cadence, that means we should see at least three generations, and possibly four, on the AM5 socket. If AMD once again extends the window, we’re likely looking at five generations of support.

It’s certainly possible that AMD will extend the timeframe. The AM4 socket set a precedent of longevity. It was originally introduced in 2016, and AMD has released new AM4 chips as recently as 2025; though, these chips are mostly rebranded versions of old silicon, or specific variants for different international markets.

For chipsets, AMD currently supports Zen 4 and Zen 5 CPUs across all chipsets with the AM5 socket. With AM4, AMD eventually brought support for Zen, Zen+, Zen 2, and Zen 3, though support varies based on manufacturer for older chipsets.

Intel has a more confusing lineup of chipsets and support, which alone spoils the reasoning for AMD winning this section. After three generations on the same socket, Intel moved to a new socket with the release of Arrow Lake. That socket (LGA1851) has seen Arrow Lake Refresh chips, and we don't expect it to see any more releases.

Intel also forces customers to its flagship Z-series chipset for CPU overclocking support; a line in the sand that it’s continued to maintain despite the fact that AMD supports CPU and memory overclocking on both B-series and X-series chipsets. Thankfully, the last several generations of Intel chipsets have opened up memory overclocking on B-series chipsets.

Winner: AMD. The AM4 socket brought about a new standard for drop-in CPU replacements, which AMD is bringing forward with AM5. Intel has made strides to support multiple generations on the same socket, but it has yet to demonstrate the ability to deliver support over several years like AMD has. Additionally, Intel continues to charge a premium for CPU overclocking by restricting the feature to flagship Z-series chipsets.

AMD vs Intel CPU Security 2025

The last few years have found security researchers poking and prodding at the speculative execution engine that's one of the key performance-boosting features behind all modern chips. The resulting research has spawned an almost never-ending onslaught of new vulnerabilities that threaten the safety of your system and private data. Unfortunately, these types of vulnerabilities are incredibly dangerous because they are undetectable—these tactics steal data by using the processor exactly as it was designed; thus, they are undetectable by any known anti-virus program.

The rash of fixes required to plug these holes also continues to grow, and many of them resulted in reduced performance initially. AMD and Intel have recognized the cost of such updates during the Spectre and Meltdown era, and more recent patches come with little to no impact on performance. It’s possible that could change with a future vulnerability, but we haven’t seen chart-breaking changes in performance from security updates in the past couple of generations.

Intel still has more known vulnerabilities, but in the years following Spectre, it’s become clear that both AMD and Intel are vulnerable to this family of attacks. At the time of writing, Intel recently patched over 30 security bugs, and AMD confirmed a critical security vulnerability in its random number generator on Zen 5 CPUs, which it plans to address with an AGESA update.

Winner: Tie. Similar to firmware, it’s hard to say anyone is a winner here. Intel claims it surfaces and addresses vulnerabilities more proactively than AMD does, but both brands chase the constantly evolving world of threats and offer driver and/or firmware updates in response. In addition, both maintain a bug bounty program to incentivize security researchers to find and surface exploits.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

• MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
• MORE: CPU Benchmark Hierarchy
• MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
• MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
• MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
• MORE: All CPUs Content

Our CPU benchmark hierarchy provides a broad view of relative performance for the latest Intel and AMD processors. Over the last 30 years, Tom’s Hardware has been benchmarking CPUs, and we use the rankings here as the basis of our best CPUs for gaming and best budget CPU rankings. We run over 200 individual tests for each CPU we look at, and that comprehensive performance is condensed here for a high-level view of how CPUs compare across gaming, single-threaded, and multithreaded performance.

Each of our CPU benchmarks helps expose different aspects of performance, from heavily-threaded code compilation and data science workloads to lightly-threaded web apps and audio encoding. We’re currently in the process of the biggest refresh to our CPU benchmarks hierarchy ever, spanning over a decade of processor releases. The results here provide the first half of that testing, focusing on DDR5 platforms that span the AMD vs Intel product lineups. As we fill out our legacy benchmarks, you’ll see more CPUs added to our rankings. If you want to check the performance of older CPUs now, you can use the second page of this article to see our legacy benchmarks.

In games, AMD’s Ryzen 7 9850X3D is the fastest CPU on the market, though other Zen 5 X3D offerings like the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 7 9800X3D aren’t far behind. X3D chips dominate the charts for gaming at 1080p, with the other exception being the relatively unpopular (and expensive) Ryzen 9 7900X3D. Otherwise, Intel’s last-gen Core i9-14900K is the fastest offering from Team Blue, with the new Core Ultra 7 270K Plus coming in slightly behind with Intel’s new iBOT feature.

Intel pulls out strong positions in applications; however, with the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus topping the charts in single-threaded performance and coming in third in multi-threaded rankings. It’s only beaten by the Ryzen 9 9950X and its X3D variant, and only by a hair. Further, both of those CPUs cost about twice as much. AMD's recent Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 claims the top slot in overall performance, but at $900, it's too expensive for most buyers.

In each section below, we’ll show you the rankings for each CPU, as well as reveal what tests went into creating the rankings. We’ll also give you some pointers for benchmarking your own CPU to see how much performance an upgrade or overclock netted you, along with some common, easy-to-run benchmarks you can perform yourself.

Exceptional Prime Day CPU deals

Here are standout CPU deals from the Prime Day event, which is currently taking place.

CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

In the album above, you can see our master charts for gaming, single-threaded, and multi-threaded performance for CPUs. For games, all of our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 5090 FE, and for applications, our testing was done with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti FE. For applications, no compute is actively running on the GPU; it’s a glorified display output that shares a driver with our gaming GPU. You can find a full breakdown of the test benches we used at the end of this article.

Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

You can see the relative score for AMD and Intel CPUs above, measured against the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, which is the fastest gaming CPU on the market, per our testing. So, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D offers 97.04% of the performance of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, while the Ryzen 9 7900X offers 69.28% of the performance. You can set any CPU as a baseline for comparison with Bench, which is available in Tom’s Hardware Premium.

All of our gaming tests were run with the RTX 5090 FE at 1080p with a mixture of High and Ultra settings. We run each test multiple times — usually between three and five — and pick the median result. In other words, the results we use are real, recorded runs, not an average of several different runs. This is important as some games, such as Far Cry 6, show great CPU scaling but are otherwise inconsistent run-to-run.

In addition to consistent hardware (test benches at the end of this article), we use a consistent test image between platforms. That means the same GPU driver, the same Windows install, the game version, etc. We also tested with Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) turned off, Resizable BAR turned on, and automatic overclocking features disabled. That includes the Intel Extreme power profile and AMD’s PBO, both of which aren’t covered under standard warranty.

For this refresh, we tested 17 games and then calculated a geometric mean of the results. A simple average would provide skewed results with such a large test pool. A geomean provides a more realistic view of how each CPU compares to the others.

Here are the games that we used for testing:

• Counter-Strike 2
• The Last of Us Part One
• Cyberpunk 2077
• Starfield
• A Plague Tale: Requiem
• Hogwarts Legacy
• F1 24
• Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
• Baldur’s Gate 3
• Monster Hunter: Wilds
• Final Fantasy XIV
• Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
• Doom: The Dark Ages
• Oblivion Remastered
• Far Cry 6
• Hitman 3
• Minecraft RTX

We’re constantly evaluating new games to include in our test suite — see our recent stories on Resident Evil Requiem CPU scaling and Crimson Desert CPU scaling — but we maintain a list of tried-and-true benchmarks for our hierarchy rankings. We want to avoid including brand-new titles, which may see many updates, to keep our rankings as true to reality as possible. If you want more about the rationale behind our game choices, see our behind the scenes look at our CPU hierarchy testing.

Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

We run hundreds of tests for each CPU, but only a small subset of those tests factor into our single-threaded rankings. We use the mp3 encoder LAME with a single thread (both standard and extended), Cinebench 2026 and 2024’s single-threaded test, the ray-traced renderer POV-ray, and WebXRT4, which runs a series of browser-based applications written in various languages.

The fastest chip in the pool here is the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, which scores 100%, with every other chip scored relative to it. The Core i9-14900K offers 95.4% of the single-threaded performance of the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus, the Ryzen 5 9600X offers 89% of the performance, and so on.

Most real-world workloads aren’t strictly single-threaded, which is why we include it on a subset of the total tests we run. The goal is to see what relative performance looks like in lightly-threaded applications, as well as look into the overall architecture of different CPUs. Single-threaded performance exposes a lot about the architecture in a way that heavily-threaded applications tend to mask.

We’re, of course, looking at performance on a single core, favoring high clock speeds and IPC (instructions per cycle). However, single-threaded performance also says a lot about what’s going on elsewhere inside the CPU, from the speed of the IMC (integrated memory controller) to the fabric/ring speed. That’s why we see things like the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus outperforming the Core Ultra 9 285K, despite the latter sporting higher clock speeds.

Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Similar to single-threaded rankings, we use a subset of the total tests we run for CPU reviews in ranking multithreaded performance. Cinebench and POV-ray show up here again, this time using as many threads as possible, alongside VRay, four Blender tests, and Handbrake using various codecs. Although most applications will leverage multiple threads these days, we’re specifically looking at applications that will take as many threads as possible to maximize compute.

Compared to single-threaded workloads, heavily-threaded tasks are less concerned with clock speed and put a greater emphasis on interconnects and core-to-core latency. Core count is obviously important, as well, though it’s been somewhat undermined by Intel’s hybrid architectures over the last several generations.

Given that we’re spanning multiple nodes, core count alone isn’t indicative of higher multithreaded performance. Yes, higher core counts within the same generation will usually provide higher multithreaded performance, but a slew of other factors can increase performance, as well, from all-core and uncore frequencies to higher transistor density. Because of the wide swath of factors, you can see much more aggressive scaling with our multithreaded rankings compared to single-threaded rankings.

Integrated GPU Gaming CPU Benchmarks Rankings 2026

Here's our list of gaming performance with integrated graphics on several of the leading APUs available. We've split this into two different price ranges, so be sure to flip through all of the performance charts. For a bit of commentary and analysis of these results, head to our Ryzen 7 5700G, Ryzen 5 5600G, and Ryzen 3 5300G reviews. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it.

How to Benchmark your CPU

It’s important to know how to benchmark your CPU. It gives you a way to compare performance after an overclock or a CPU upgrade, and it allows you to check if you’re getting the full performance out of your system. Maybe a poor CPU cooler mount is limiting your performance, or maybe your BIOS settings aren’t optimal. Using benchmarks to compare your results lets you see where your rig stacks up, not only for leaderboard purposes, but also basic troubleshooting.

The key to benchmarking your CPU is consistency. The only variable that should change is your CPU, be it a new CPU or an overclock/undervolt. Before starting, make sure to close any applications running in the background. That’s not only to net peak performance, but also to avoid any inconsistencies between runs. Background apps can gobble up threads inconsistently, making it difficult to compare your results from run to run.

If you want more consistency, you can optionally run the following command before benchmarking in an elevated command prompt:

Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks

This will force Windows to perform the background tasks it normally does when your PC is idle. It’s not essential, but it’s a good sanity check to make sure there’s nothing interfering with your results.

For applications, you want to test the apps you actually use. If you use the Adobe suite, for example, you can download and use PugetBench for free and compare your results with Puget’s database. A lot of apps don’t have these easy-to-use benchmarking tools and databases, so you need to find a proxy. For instance, Procyon Office measures Microsoft Office performance, but a license costs nearly $1,600 per year. PCMark 10 Basic, which is free, measures open-source office applications. Below, we have some of our favorite free benchmarks for comparing CPU performance.

In games, you can take two approaches: manual or automated. Some modern games include built-in benchmarking tools, such as Cyberpunk 2077 and Doom: The Dark Ages, and although they aren’t perfect, they’re easy to run and highly repeatable. The best way to measure CPU gaming performance, however, is manual benchmarking.

That involves finding a scene where you can go over a specific path repeatedly. That could be starting from a specific checkpoint that you can reload or resorting to a manual save where you start from the exact same position. Regardless, it’s important to avoid randomness in your testing. Keep the path consistent — for example, a walking path through a town — and try not to swing the camera around.

For measuring performance in games, you’ll need a performance monitoring tool. There are simple apps like Nvidia’s FrameView, which logs a ton of information but is a little cumbersome to deal with; it exports data to spreadsheets. CapFrameX is a good alternative, which uses the same backend as FrameView (Intel’s PresentMon), but comes with a user-friendly GUI and extra features like the ability to generate charts right in the app.

After you run your benchmarks, you need a comparison point. Databases like Puget are your best resources on that front. If you’re comparing results to reviews, forum threads, or other systems, keep in mind the variables that can influence performance. It’s not a good idea to compare performance with uncontrolled variables unless you have a wide swath of comparison points.

Best CPU Benchmarks You Can Run

• Cinebench 2026 – Cinebench is the quintessential CPU benchmark, used almost universally in reviews, and it’s completely free to download and use.
• Geekbench 6 – Geekbench has a number of issues, but it offers a massive database for comparing your system against other similar systems. And it’s free to download and run.
• Blender – Blender has a benchmarking utility with a GUI that’s free to download, as well as a large database of results.
• PCMark 10 Basic – The main PCMark 10 benchmark is free to use with the Basic edition, allowing you to test productivity performance with open-source office apps, as well as compare your scores with UL’s database.
• Handbrake – Handbrake is a powerful, free, and open-source video transcoding tool, and it’s easy to run benchmarks with. Use any video file, make sure your settings are the same, and start a stopwatch to measure the time encoding takes. Lower is better.
• WebXPRT 5 – WebXPRT runs a variety of web applications directly in your browser, for free, and with a database to compare results to. It takes a while to run, however.
• JetStream 2 – JetStream is a faster browser-based benchmark, though it doesn’t have a database of results.
• CPU-Z – CPU-Z isn’t a reliable benchmark for real-world performance, but it includes single- and multithreaded tests, it’s easy to run, and you’ll find results online almost as commonly as Cinebench results.
• Y-cruncher – This test calculates Pi with digit extraction, and it’s accelerated with SIMD instructions like AVX. You can only run it from a command line, but it’s relatively straightforward.
• PugetBench – Puget includes benchmarks for the biggest apps in the Adobe suite, as well as DaVinci Resolve. The benchmark itself is free, and Puget maintains a large database. You’ll need a license for the applications it tests, however.

2026 CPU Benchmarks Test System and Configuration

• AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K vs Core i7-13700K: Big Gaming Punch, Smaller Price Tag
• AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs Intel Core i9-13900K Faceoff: Battle of the Gaming Flagships
• Intel Core i5-13600K vs AMD Ryzen 7 7700X and Ryzen 5 7600X Face Off
• AMD Ryzen 9 7950X vs Intel Core i9-13900K Face Off
• Ryzen 7 5800X3D vs Core i7-12700K and Core i9-12900K Face-Off: The Rise of 3D V-Cache
• Intel Core i9-12900K vs Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X: Alder Lake and Ryzen 5000 Face Off
• Intel Core i5-12600K vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and 5800X Face Off: Ryzen Has Fallen
• Intel Core i7-12700K vs AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and 5800X Face Off: Intel Rising
• Intel Core i5-12400 vs AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Face-Off: The Gaming Value Showdown

• MORE: Best CPUs for Gaming
• MORE: AMD vs Intel
• MORE: 13th-Gen Raptor Lake All We Know
• MORE: Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 All We Know
• MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
• MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
• MORE: All CPUs Content

2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy

You can find our rankings of the most current-gen systems on the previous page. The results below are from our legacy benchmarks, using a different GPU and test systems than our current CPU benchmark rankings. However, this provides great historical context and also includes other previous-gen CPUs not included in our new test suite. You'll also find our even older legacy rankings further below. These date back over the last decade.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 CPU Benchmarks Rankings - Windows 10 and 11

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Gaming CPU Benchmarks Ranking

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. We measured performance for the 1080p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Hitman 2, Far Cry 5, Project CARS 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We measured performance for the 1440p CPU gaming benchmarks with a geometric mean of Borderlands 3, Project CARS 3, Far Cry 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Single-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

These results are from our 2022 test bench. We calculate the above single-threaded CPU benchmark rankings based on a geometric mean of the Cinebench, POV-Ray, and LAME CPU benchmarks. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these tests in Windows 10.

Legacy: 2020 - 2022 Multi-Threaded CPU Benchmarks Rankings

These tests are from our 2022 test bench. The multi-threaded workload column is based on CPU benchmarks performance in Cinebench, POV-ray, vray, Blender (four tests - Koro, Barcellona, Classroom, bmw27), y-cruncher, and Handbrake x264 and x265 workloads. These CPU benchmarks represent performance in productivity-focused applications that tend to require more compute horsepower. The most powerful chip gets a 100, and all others are scored relative to it. We conducted these benchmarks in Windows 10.