Best Budget CPUs of 2026, Benchmarked and Ranked

Best Budget CPUs
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

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.

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief 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
  • 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