Best Budget CPUs of 2024, Benchmarked and Ranked
We've tested several cheap CPUs to help you find the right one for your needs and budget.
The budget CPU market is more important than ever as prices continue to increase, and luckily, there's a strong lineup of value processors from both Intel and AMD that can suit your needs. If you're looking for higher-end processors for gaming, head to our list of the best CPUs for gaming, and if you're looking for even more horsepower in productivity work, our CPU benchmark hierarchy can give you a sense of the playing field. However, if you're looking for the best cheap CPU, you're in the right place.
If you're looking to spend at the upper end of the budget spectrum, the Intel Core i5-13400 is simply the processor to beat. At $160, this budget chip offers the most performance of the budget lineup.
One step down the ladder, the Ryzen 5 5600 proves it has an exceptional blend of price and performance, thus earning it a spot on our list of best budget CPUs. This chip comes with plenty of cores that not only offer leading performance in gaming at its price point, but are also adept enough to chew through more standard types of work.
Intel's new 14th-Gen chips consist of refresh models for the lower-end Core i3 chips, so the Core i3-13100 delivers nearly the same performance as its successor, the Core i3-14100. That means you can save money and get basically the same performance by selecting the 13100 model.
AMD’s Renoir chips take a new approach of using Zen 2-powered APU silicon with disabled integrated graphics units to tackle the low-end. We reviewed the Ryzen 5 4500 and Ryzen 3 4100 and found that the Zen 2 architecture simply doesn't hold up against today's more modern chips, like the Core i3 models. We can't recommend either of those new AMD chips due to the severe performance and connectivity tradeoffs.
Here's the shortlist of the best budget CPUs on the market. Below, we have more detailed descriptions for each processor.
Best Budget CPUs in 2024 at a Glance:
Best $130-$160 Budget CPU Pick:
1. Intel Core i5-13400F
Best $100-$130 Budget CPU Pick:
2. Intel Core i5-12400F
Alternate: AMD Ryzen 5 5600
Best $60-$100 Entry-Level Budget CPU Pick:
4. Intel Core i3-13100F
Best Gaming APUs Entry-Level Budget CPU Pick:
Best Budget CPUs 2024
Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
Best $130-$160 Budget CPU Pick
1. Intel Core i5-13400
Our expert review:
Specifications
Reasons to buy
Reasons to avoid
The 10-core 16-thread $160 Core i5-13400F was the go-to value gaming chip for some time, but the newer model took its place on most best CPU lists. For instance, Intel released the newer $175 Core i5-14400F, built on the same silicon. However, it delivers slim to non-existent real-world performance increases over the Core i5-13400F and has a higher price tag. Thus, the slightly older 13400F is still the best Core i5 option if you're on a budget.
The 13400F is an incredible deal at $160, but it doesn't have in-built graphics, so you'll need a discrete graphics card if you select this chip. The $175 Raptor Lake Core i5-13400 is a solid deal if you need integrated graphics in your processor, but it comes at a premium.
The Core i5-13400F has six P-cores that support hyper-threading and operate at a 2.5 GHz base and 4.6 GHz boost clock. The four e-cores for threaded tasks run up to 3.3 GHz. The 13400F supports solid connectivity with support for DDR4-3200 or up to DDR5-4800 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 Core i5-13400F comes with a capable cooler that can handle its 65W/148W base/peak power rating, and you can use a newer 700- or 800-series motherboard or an older 600-series model if the BIOS supports the chip. Most gamers will enjoy the lower price and comparable performance of DDR4, but you can upgrade to the slightly more expensive DDR5 if you need access to more memory throughput.
Intel's partners offer B- and H-series motherboards, and a B660/B760 motherboard plus a Core i5-13400F CPU makes a solid value gaming combo.
Read More: Intel Core i5-13400F Review
Best $100-$130 Budget CPU Pick
2. Intel Core i5-12400F
Our expert review:
Specifications
Reasons to buy
Reasons to avoid
At $110, the graphics-less Core i5-12400F is a solid choice, and you can step up to the $130 Core i5-12400 if you need integrated graphics. This chip is slightly faster than the alternate 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 point, 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 predecessor and our top pick above, 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 as 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.
Read More: Intel Core i5-12400F Review
Specifications
Reasons to buy
Reasons to avoid
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 ~$175 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: AMD Ryzen 5 5600 Review
Best $60-$100 Entry-Level Budget CPU Pick
Specifications
Reasons to buy
Reasons to avoid
The graphics-less $80 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 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. The Core i3-12100 is a locked chip, meaning it isn't overclockable. However, Intel supports memory overclocking on Z-, B-, and H-series motherboards (Z-Series doesn't make sense for this class of chip, though).
Read: Intel Core i3-13100F Review
Best Budget Gaming APU CPU Pick
4. AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
Our expert review:
Specifications
Reasons to buy
Reasons to avoid
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.
At $120, the Ryzen 5 5600G gives you 96% of the gaming performance on integrated graphics than its more expensive sibling, the $160 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.
Read: AMD Ryzen 5 5600G Review
- MORE: AMD vs Intel
- MORE: How to Overclock a CPU
- MORE: How to check CPU Temperature
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Paul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.
-
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 -
InvalidError
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.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.
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. -
Dugimodo And why can't you understand that all those results would be the same so you couldn't tell which CPU was better.Reply
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. -
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.Reply
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. -
InvalidError
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.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
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. -
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.
-
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 ??Reply
$2 less, inferior in every single way imo. -
InvalidError
$100 vs $70 ($96 vs $64 on Amazon) is $30 less for the G5400.21118606 said:Not entirely sure why the g5400 gets an 8/10 same as the Ryzen 2200g ??
$2 less, inferior in every single way imo.