AMD’s 2000-series Ryzen chips came on strong in 2018, with the Ryzen 7 2700X knocking Intel’s similarly priced Core i7s to alternate pick territory, thanks to improved performance at 1080p, an attractive bundled cooler, plus more cores for less money.
Intel still wins in the mid-range price bracket, with its excellent Core i5-8400. Down in the mainstream/budget territory, things are spit depending on your graphics choices. AMD’s Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 5 2200G are excellent options if you don’t plan on splurging on a dedicated card. But if you are going to plug in a graphics card, Intel’s Core i3-3100 delivers better performance at a good price.
-
AMD Ryzen 7 2700XBest Overall
-
- Socket
- 1331
-
- Cores / Threads
- 8 / 16
-
- Base Frequency
- 3.7 GHz
-
- Boost Frequency
- 4.3 GHz
-
- Memory Speed
- up to DDR4-2933
-
- Memory Controller
- Dual-Channel
-
- Unlocked Multiplier
- ✓
-
- PCIe Lanes
- x16 PCIe Gen 3
-
- Integrated Graphics
- ✗
-
- Cache
- 16MB
-
- Architecture
- Zen+
-
- Process
- 12nm LP GlobalFoundries
-
- TDP
- 105W
-
-
Intel Core i5-8400Best Value
-
- Socket
- LGA 1151
-
- Cores / Threads
- 6 / 6
-
- Base Frequency
- 2.8 GHz
-
- Boost Frequency
- 1 Core @ 4.0 GHz, 2 Cores @ 3.9 GHz, 4 Cores @ 3.9 GHz, 6 Cores @ 3.8 GHz
-
- Memory Speed
- DDR4-2666
-
- Memory Controller
- Dual-Channel
-
- Unlocked Multiplier
- ✗
-
- PCIe Lanes
- x16 Gen3
-
- Integrated Graphics
- UHD 630 (1150 MHz)
-
- Cache
- 10.5MB
-
- Architecture
- Coffee Lake
-
- Process
- 14nm++
-
- TDP
- 65W
-
-
AMD Ryzen 5 2400GBudget Pick
-
- Socket
- AM4
-
- Cores / Threads
- 4 / 8
-
- Base Frequency
- 3.6 GHz
-
- Boost Frequency
- 3.9 GHz
-
- Memory Speed
- up to DDR4-2933
-
- Memory Controller
- Dual-Channel
-
- Unlocked Multiplier
- ✓
-
- PCIe Lanes
- x8 3.0
-
- Integrated Graphics
- Vega
-
- Cache
- 4MB L3
-
- Architecture
- Zen - Vega
-
- Process
- 14nm+
-
- TDP
- 65W
-
-
AMD Ryzen 3 2200GEntry-Level Pick
-
- Socket
- AM4
-
- Cores / Threads
- 4 / 4
-
- Base Frequency
- 3.5 GHz
-
- Boost Frequency
- 3.7 GHz
-
- Memory Speed
- up to DDR4-2933 (varies)
-
- Memory Controller
- Dual-Channel
-
- Unlocked Multiplier
- ✓
-
- PCIe Lanes
- x8 3.0
-
- Integrated Graphics
- Vega
-
- Cache
- 4MB L3
-
- Architecture
- Zen - Vega
-
- Process
- 14nm+
-
- TDP
- 65W
-
Why Trust Us
Tom's Hardware has been reviewing PC components for more than two decades. We put each CPU through a bevy of benchmarks which measure everything from its single- and multi-core performance in applications and games, to its power consumption. We've tested hundreds of models, at both stock and overclock settings where applicable, so we can separate the best from the multi-core disappointments.
Quick Shopping Tips
When choosing a CPU, consider the following:
- You can't lose with AMD or Intel: So long as you’re considering current-generation parts (AMD Ryzen 2000 or Intel 8th Generation Core “Coffee Lake”), this debate is basically a wash, with Intel doing a bit better on gaming and browsing and AMD handling tasks like video editing faster.
- Clock speed is more important than core number: Higher clock speeds translate to snappier performance in simple, common tasks such as gaming, while more cores will help you get through time-consuming workloads faster.
- Get the latest gen: You won't save much money in the long run by going with an older chip.
- Budget for a full system: Don't pair a strong CPU with weak storage, RAM and graphics.
- Overclocking isn’t for everyone: For most people, it makes more sense to spend $20-$60 more and buy a higher-end chip.
For even more information, check out our CPU Buyer’s Guide, where we discuss how much you should spend for what you’re looking to do, and when cores matter more than high clock speeds.
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPU Content
$300+ Best Pick
Flagship mainstream desktop processors come with the highest price tag of our recommendations, but those searching for the best performance to push the beefiest graphics cards will be rewarded with chart-topping performance. Both Intel and AMD offer high-end desktop models that scale beyond 16 cores, but those premium processors often don't deliver the same amount of gaming performance as the mainstream models. Also, they come with expensive platforms and typically support quad-channel memory, which adds yet more cost to the equation. The picture changes if you need more performance for other types of applications, like rendering or encoding, but the mainstream processors offer the best value for strictly gaming.
For most high-end gamers, the flagship mainstream models in Intel's Core i7 and AMD's Ryzen 7 product families offer the best value. Intel's Coffee and Kaby Lake models offer the best absolute gaming performance, but AMD's Ryzen 7 series comes with more cores, which you might find attractive if you have more demanding requirements, such as streaming or intense multi-tasking. You can also often find the Ryzen processors well below MSRP.
With its 2nd Gen Ryzen chips—and the flagship Ryzen 7 2700X specifically—AMD has fixed or minimized the major issues and reservations we had with its first-generation Ryzen parts. In gaming at 1080p, our tests show the Ryzen 7 2700X pulls near enough to the Core i7-8700K that the two are effectively tied. And AMD’s latest top-end mainstream chip easily wins the value proposition over Intel because of the inclusion of a premium, RGB-lit Wraith Prism cooler, not to mention backwards-compatibility with older, less-expensive 300-series boards.
On top off that, the Ryzen 7 2700X’s eight cores and 16 threads helps it pull well ahead of the six-core, 12-thread Core i7-8700K in multi-threaded tasks like rendering. With Intel’s chip costing $30 more (as of this writing) for fewer cores and threads, with no in-box cooler, it’s easy to make the call in favor of the Ryzen 7 2700X. Intel still has an edge in single-threaded performance, as well as overclocking headroom (though you’ll have to invest in a cooler for that on the Intel side). But those advantages don’t tip the scale in favor of Intel for most users.
Alternative Pick:
MORE: Best Builds
MORE: Best Cases
MORE: Best Cooling
$200 - $300 Best Pick
Mid-range processors typically land in the $200 to $300 price range, and they offer satisfying performance for the majority of gamers. Stepping beyond the $300 price class typically grants less than a 10% overall performance improvement that isn't always worth the higher price tag.
AMD's Ryzen processors have truly reinvigorated this segment and often come with a discount, too. For the overclockers among us, AMD's processors all offer unlocked ratio multipliers that you can exploit on budget-friendly motherboards, while Intel's offerings are split into both locked and unlocked processors. With Intel, overclocking requires a step up to a Z-Series motherboard and a more expensive "K"-series processor.
This price range finds two distinct price tiers, but provided the processor has an unlocked multiplier, you can often find the best value around the $200 mark. It's best to step up to the more expensive models in this class if overclocking isn't in your plans.
The Core i5-8400 brings a powerful six-core design to the mid-range, offering class-leading gaming performance and competitive performance in heavier applications. More expensive models offer more performance in both categories, but the Core i5-8400 is easily the pound-for-pound gaming champion.
The i5-8400 wades into the market with six physical cores and no Hyper-Threading, which is 50% increase in cores compared to the Kaby Lake i5 Series. The 2.8 GHz base frequency jumps to 4.0 GHz on a single core. That's complemented by varying multi-core boost frequencies based upon the number of active cores.
The -8400 drops into the LGA1151 socket on 300-Series motherboards. It comes with a bundled cooler and will make a good companion for B- and H-Series motherboards when they arrive early this year. For now, Z370 motherboards are the only option, but you can find “budget” Z370s for as low as $120. 
Alternative Picks:
MORE: Best Gaming Desktops
MORE: Best Graphics
MORE: Best Gaming Laptops
$100 - $200 Best Pick
The lower end of the gaming processor spectrum is incredibly competitive, particularly with the copious core counts, bundled coolers, and unlocked multipliers you can find in the AMD lineup. Intel processors tend to offer the best performance at stock settings, and the locked multipliers in this price range make them suitable for less-expensive B- and H-Series motherboards.
These processors will often find a home in sub-$800 gaming rigs, so bundled coolers, particularly if they can handle overclocking, become more important.
Finding any gaming-friendly graphics card at a reasonable price these days is next to impossible thanks to coin mining. But AMD's latest Ryzen chips with onboard Vega graphics make gaming without a card a serious possibility. Don't expect to run games above 1080p, or even always at 1080p with the Ryzen 5 2400G. But if you're after a chip that will let you achieve smooth frame rates on recent titles at low settings without buying an overpriced card, the Ryzen 5 2400G is your best bet today.
If you have or will soon buy a graphics card, the Ryzen 5 2400G is not the best option, as the processor and graphics cores have to share power. In this price range, if a graphics card is destined for your rig, get the Intel Core i3 8100 instead--especially if Intel's more affordable 8th-gen B- and H-series motherboards are available by the time you read this.
Alternative Picks:
MORE: Best Memory
MORE: Best Gaming Monitors
MORE: Best Motherboards
Sub-$100 Best Pick
You won't find several of the more advanced features on this class of processors, such as AVX or Optane support, but they make a great pairing for sub-$200 graphics cards.
Graphics card price hikes haven’t quite hit the budget builder and low-end gamer market as hard as the mid-range and high-end market (basically, anything above a Nvidia GTX 1050). But when money is tight, being able to game without a graphics card can lead to serious savings. And with RAM prices continuing to soar, those working with small budgets need to tighten the strings anywhere they can.
That makes the four-core, four-thread Ryzen 3 2200G particularly appealing for budget gaming builders and upgraders. The $99 chip delivers solid 720p performance thanks to its Vega on-chip graphics, decent CPU muscle for mainstream tasks, and can be dropped into an existing inexpensive 300-series motherboard (after a requisite BIOS update), to form the basis of a surprisingly capable low-cost PC. It’s also unlocked, so with proper cooling you can tune the graphics or the CPU to best suit your needs.
Alternative Pick:
MORE: Best Power Supplies
MORE: Best SSDs
MORE: Best Virtual Reality Headsets
At stock speeds, the 2600 is further behind the 8400 than the 2700X is behind the 8700K.
It's most likely because of the physical core difference. If the 2600 was an 8 physical core chip without multithreading, It would perform the same vs. the 8400 as the 2700X performs vs the 8700K.
Yes, if you overclock, the 2600 is the better chip, but Tom's doesn't just consider people who will overclock in it's recommendations.
Best Gaming CPU in the 300+ is Intel 8700K, period. We aren't talking most cost effective, nor Best multi-use CPU, or which has a cooler and which doesn't. Best period is intel 8700K/8086, and while we are at it, the 7900x is better than the 2700 also.
NO point in telling me which is best if I'm also steaming or doing intense multi-tasking. A very small minority of folks stream while gaming. And few multi-task if they are truly engaged in gaming. And as mentioned above, the 7900x will beat the 2700 in both games and multi-tasking as well. Lastly, it will be years from now when 6-10 cores actually matter much for gamers. By then people will have moved on to other processors.
One last thing I want to say: Games so far have been so poorly optimized for cores that the old Sandy Bridge 2600K or my previously owned x79 3820, both of these chips overclock extremely easily, resulting in excellent FPS in games, whereas the GPU becomes the real bottle neck. So if we aren't choosing the absolute best (8700K or 8086), then the best may simply be to stick with that old trusty 2011 Core I7 2600K overclocked yet again.
1. overclockers aren't the only gamers that buy CPU's
2. this article has never been about the absolute most powerful CPU for gaming. The 8700K wouldn't even be close if that were the case. It's always been best value in each price bracket.
As you can see here. Even the even the 8600K beats the AMD 2700 in gaming, and its value is pretty damn good to boot.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3941vs3958
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/ If you set this to show you fastest average bench performance, you'll see that there is a myriad of intel processors, some super expensive, some well within the price range of AMD's .
What I will give to AMD, and I think what the article intended, but titled it wrong, was what is the best multi-purpose processor. Not what is best gaming. Best multi-purpose processor at that price range, is the 2700. And it should list it at ~300, not 300+, again, if you list 300 and above, and you don't specify price/performance, you again then open yourself up to the beasts like 7900x for which the 2700 was not meant to be compared to.
Just my two cents.
It would have the fastest gaming CPU, independent of cost or other uses. So, probably the i7-8700k.
I still think it would be a bad sensible choice, but as we see over and over, people are not sensible.
In that case, it would be the 7900X, not the 8700K.
In saying 8700K is the "best" instead of the 7900X, people are already claiming a value proposition, rather than absolute best performance.
In that context, denying that the 2700X is the best is contradictory.
Sorry, Intel fanbois. But competition is a consumer win.
In saying 8700K is the "best" instead of the 7900X, people are already claiming a value proposition, rather than absolute best performance.
In that context, denying that the 2700X is the best is contradictory."
That's actually incorrect. For Pure Gaming, the 7900x is NOT better than the 8700K or 8086. It's single threaded performance at stock, and it's inability to overclock to or near 5GHz means that it almost always lose to the 8700K or 8086. It is though a much more balanced processor with it's 10cores.
To the guy who said sorry intel fan boys. I don't have any allegiance to anyone. I was squarely in the came of AMD in the days of Athlon XP (I had the 1600+), and I again was in the AMD camp with Athlon 64. I kept that Athlon 64 for quite a bit of time actually until I simply couldn't keep it any longer and went with the Core-2 Duo E6600, then the Core 2 quad q9550, then the 3820k. Same with GPUs, I was squarely in AMD came with Radeon 32, then 64, then Radeon 9700, then got the 9800 (at the time nVidia had that crappy 5800 that was late to the show and ran hot as hell with that vaccum cleaner blower. After that I think i went with the nvidia 8800, after that back to AMD with Radeon 5850, then Radeon 7970, finally then back to nVidia with 970, and now 1080TI.
so over the years, I simply have gone to either great price/performance like the Athlon xp, or went great performance but not Hot/loud, or recently just went with the best performance. Despite all that, I always was aware of what was the absolute Top performance, which currently is the 8700K/8086 for the CPU side, and the nVidia Volta/Titan/1080ti for the GPU side with respect to GAMING.
my 2 cents.
Like I've already said, these articles don't cater exclusively to overclockers.
Just read the review and it heavily downplays i7 strengths and gives half truths insinuating you aren't getting a cooler when in reality they add in the cost to replace the lackluster stock one, or that the RGB one is SO valuable. Any overclocker is tossing the stock cooler regardless. The Gigabyte z370 is only $170 so that "expensive platform cost" is simply untrue. The prices listed here are all higher for intel chips and boards than when you click them, and the AMD ones are accurate.
Hell, there's even links to AMD wares everywhere on the page.
Anyone here knows enough about hardware to actually understand the benchmarks, take 15 whole seconds to click a couple links and see REAL pricing and ?? the 9/10 AMD vs 7/10 I7 ratings. It's pretty obvious AMD has either a fanboi here, sponsors THG, or both.
I'm only thankful the Ryzen exists to keep intel honest in it's pricing on it's still slightly superior offerings, even when you factor in value.
Additionally, with the cost of equivalent quality motherboards also being in AMD's favor, it is hard to insinuate that Intel is doing a good job right now with bang for the buck. They need to back down a bit on the cash grabbing before they start grabbing the cash out of their own wallets instead...