5 Best PC Gaming CPUs You Can Buy Right Now

Written by Jon Sutton on Thu, Oct 17, 2019 2:02 PM

For a while there, Intel was running a near-monopoly on CPUs. Thankfully, AMD has stepped up to the plate in recent years with the advent of Ryzen. Now, the CPU market in 2019 is the most vibrant its been in many a year, with exciting new processors released last weekend from AMD. We will incorporate those into this page very shortly.

If you're on the hunt for a new CPU  to buy in 2019 though, it can be tough to know where to start. The good news is that the performance of most mid-range and high-end processors massively outstrip the demands of today's games. Once you start aiming above the best value threshold, you're really paying for stronger performance in threaded workloads outside of gaming.

It means that, unlike the Best Graphics Cards, your CPU shouldn't have a massive impact on frame rates. As long as it's enough, you're golden. Which then means that in today's market, you don't need to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on a gaming CPU - there's plenty of processors out there with great gaming performance for sub $200. Obviously, we all still eye the top-end processors and want that power for ourselves, but it's not essential outside of those who crave ultra-high refresh rates on 144Hz monitors and their ilk.

Here we've outlined five of the best CPUs to buy in 2019, ranging from the best CPU on a tight budget all the way up to the best gaming processor that money can buy. We will continually update this article as better options at these price points become available, such as the newly launched AMD Ryzen 3000 processors.

Best on a Budget

Ryzen 3 3200G - 4C/4T @ 3.4 GHz / 4.0 GHz - Check Price

AMD really upset the market lately with its top-notch CPUs at fantastic prices. At $99, the Ryzen 3 3200G is, like the 2200G before it, a bargain, and not the sort you’d find thrown in a bin. To our eyes, the Ryzen 3 3200G is now the ultimate budget CPU in the world today, offering up quad-core performance and discrete Vega graphics which has a damn good stab at playing games at 1080p. It’s the ultimate all-in-one part for those who want to put together a dirt-cheap gaming built quickly.

 

Best Low-End

Intel Core i3-9100 4-Core 3.6GHz - 4C/4T @ 3.6 GHz / 4.2 GHz - Check Price

With a price that doesn't exactly break the bank, the Intel Core i3-9100 offers solid quad-core performance albeit minus hyper-threading support. Dual-core just won't cut it for gaming these days, so quad-core should be viewed as the minimum for a satisfactory gaming experience in modern titles. The Core i3-9100 is modest yet capable, offering a 3.6GHz base clock and 4.2 GHz boost right out of the box. It's not one for performance gamers but if you've got a low to mid-range graphics card then the i3-9100 is a great pairing.

Best Mid-Range

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X 6-Core 3.8GHz - 6C/12T @ 3.8 GHz / 4.4 GHz - Check Price

Unfortunately for Intel, AMD is in danger of becoming dominant across the entire spectrum of processors right now. Case in point the all-important mid-range, where the Ryzen 5 3600X now comfortably sits as the strongest pairing of price and performance at $220-250 range. 

Performance-wise, the Ryzen 5 3600X is a smidgen faster than the Intel Core i5-9600K, with recent price drops from Intel putting these two on a comparatively level playing field. While enthusiasts can probably eke out more performance from a typical 9600K, the Ryzen 5 3600X offers great all-round CPU performance for both gaming productivity uses.

If you want to make some even bigger savings, you could also opt for a previous-gen Ryzen 5 2600X which is available for knock-down prices right now.

Best High-End Gaming

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.6GHz - 8C / 16T @ 3.6 GHz / 4.4 GHz - Check Price

AMD has gone on upset the apple cart with this one. The Ryzen 7 3700X is an octa-core monster that can tackle whatever you're going to throw at it both in terms of gaming and productivity. There are faster processors out there in terms of single-core performance but this is double the threads of an Intel Core i7-9700K for a comparatively cheaper price. Top-tier performance from a CPU has seldom come as affordable as the Ryzen 7 3700X.

Ultimate High-End CPU

Intel Core i9-9980XE - 18C/36T @ 3.0 GHz / 4.4 GHz - Check Price

The Intel Core i9-9980XE is utter insanity for those who want the absolute best of the best. If your core use of a CPU is intended to be gaming, this is a ludicrously unnecessary (and expensive) purchase. Multi-core performance on the i9-9980XE is through the roof, propped up by 18 cores and 36 threads courtesy of HyperThreading. Generational improvements to frequency and efficiency help the 9980XE to the top of the heap. This will just absolutely blitz through multi-threaded applications such as rendering, encoding, and compiling, although gaming applications will enjoy precious few benefits from the eye-watering price tag.

Which CPU bracket do you shop in?

Our favourite comments:

Best price-performance value... Cos that's what matters. And that's where R5 3600 perfectly fits in.

Komodo

I think for gaming the i5 is the clear winner for value for "gaming" especially at 5Ghz and beyond it easily keeps up with the i7 and i9 while the Ryzen 5 falls behind at stock let alone OCed perf. For versatility the r5 is the clear winner

IlluminatiEyes

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
8
Offline
21:29 Nov-08-2019

value yall
value

2
Rep
160
Offline
12:40 Oct-18-2019

i3 over r5 2600?i3 costs 40$ more, has no HT, 2 cores less for a small single core advantage (games are starting to utilize more than 4 cores). And if you really want intel just get the i5 9400f.
Also 3600 is better value than 3600x, for the price difference you can get a better cooler than what 3600x ships with.

I'd maybe switch 3700x with 9700k if it's purely for gaming
And again, why 9980xe over 9900k? 9900k is quite a bit faster for gaming (plus 4 times cheaper)

5
Rep
35
Offline
admin approved badge
07:14 Oct-18-2019

I've been using a 9590 since 2013. The 3700x can handle single core performance at least 70 percent better than the FX lineup (Not saying much, I know). But that TDP and power, for the price? Worth it. Plus, DDR4. Ooo la la, me likey. And NVME. That too.

0
Rep
-11
Offline
08:37 May-28-2021

555

0
Rep
13
Offline
21:10 Oct-17-2019

So chaps, 2700 (160), 2700x (187) or 3700x (300) for an upgrade? GPU will either be a 5700 XT or 2070 Super and I'll be moving upto 1440p. Prices are in sterling and from Amazon uk.

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:28 Oct-17-2019

Nah, R7 2700 for the win it's only 10-20% slower with a rtx 2080Ti and overall in productivity and even less so when overclocked.
For the Ryzen 5 it's the 105-110 euro R5 2600 that is a champ, 15% slower than a r5 3600 for 210-220 euro with a rtx 2080Ti and even less when overclocked.

4
Rep
13
Offline
04:00 Oct-18-2019

Read somewhere that the 2700x is a much better overclocker. How much extra perf can you get with that? Have my 4770k at 4.4 stable and that's allowed me to maintain 60 fps on ultra in most games at 1080p.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
06:48 Oct-18-2019

Nope, at best it's 100-200Mhz higher(or 2-5% higher) overclock.
Back in the day CPUs with higher stock clocks did overclock more as they were binned higher than those with lower stock clockcs, with Ryzen CPUs that's not the case, with intel CPUs you can't overclock the lower clocked ones so we don't reallly know.

0
Rep
13
Offline
08:26 Oct-18-2019

I see. Would you happen to know a reasonably priced mATX B450 MB which can support the 3900/3950x? I'm thinking of going with the 2700 and then 2-3 years later down the line getting either of those for a cheap upgrade.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
08:42 Oct-18-2019

Unless it's for work, an upgrade from a Ryzen 7 2700 to a r9 3900/3950x will be the same as upgrading to a r7 3700x for gaming.


Also I'd say get a full size ATX board, unless your case is only mATX. They tend to have better VRMs or/and better VRM cooling, more features and are barely more expensive.


Otherwise the Asrock B450 Pro, MSI B450 Tomahawk, ASUS B450 TUF all have mATX and standard ATX variants, pick and choose.

1
Rep
13
Offline
09:01 Oct-18-2019

I will be doing some heavy duty work in the future which could benefit from the extra core and thread count. I was just wondering if the B450 chipset will be enough for something like the 3950x. Yeah, I'm limited to mATX. How's the Aorus B450M? Never had experience with Gigabyte but Asrock and ASUS have been good to me

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
09:10 Oct-18-2019

The chipset yes, it's the VRMS that people are usually conserned about, but there are great B450 boards with great VRMs.


If a chipset supports a CPU then the chipset will handle it just fine(well in modern times at least), it's just that cheaper chipsets have cheapr boards which have cheaper VRMs, but for sure a good B450 board can handle a 3950X considering how much more power overclocking a R7 3700x consumes a stock 3900X wouldn't be a problem.


The Aorus has poor VRMs, I'd stay away from them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqQcgwz1hYA
Simple test, lower temperatures = better.
Power delivery is also important, but not that much when not overclocking.

1
Rep
19
Offline
22:20 Oct-17-2019

is there a reason you are moving from the 4770k? at 1440p youll barely notice any difference from Ryzen cause you will be GPU bound all the time i guess if you play ubisoft games only it makes sense since only those smash 4 core chips to pieces but otherwise id sit on that cpu for a bit longer unless problems happen

0
Rep
13
Offline
04:01 Oct-18-2019

Feeling the 8t bottleneck. Also my motherboard might be dying. Got a couple of BOSDs this month due to IO failures. Also the VRMs might be degrading. Was running 4.5 stable for a while but had to downclock earlier this year because the system started crashing.

0
Rep
13
Offline
04:05 Oct-18-2019

Or maybe that's the CPU itself. Don't know if MB VRMs can actually degrade over time.

0
Rep
19
Offline
05:20 Oct-18-2019

They can but its rare more likely the cpu has lost stability causing you to lower clock speed or increase voltage to maintain the same speed its very common with overclocks. Im not sure what 8t bottleneck you are feeling though since the rx 470 is holding you back in every situation,depends on games though

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
07:07 Oct-18-2019

Well the 8 threads of a 4 core/8 threads are not equally as powerful as it's NOT true SMT(that's why Intel calls it Hyper-Threading). All it does is fill the empty pipeline stages with data(think of it as an extra worker adding items on the empty spaces on a conveyor belt for other workers to process), but the kernel of the OSes need to see it as an extra thread so that it and software can utilize this more advanced scheduling.


This results in 0-25% higher performance for Intel's hyper-threading and 0-30% higher erformance for AMD's (fake)SMT.

1
Rep
13
Offline
08:05 Oct-18-2019

A few weeks ago I tried to stream a game to a few friends of mine so to give us something to play/watch while we talked but I was forced to go 720p to get any decent performance and even then it was choppy on both ends. I also do video editing and find that i waste quite a lot of time waiting for stuff to get done...

0
Rep
13
Offline
08:06 Oct-18-2019

....than actually doing it. So yeah, 8t just aren't cutting it anymore.

0
Rep
-6
Offline
20:45 Oct-17-2019

What about AMD 200 GE.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
20:47 Oct-17-2019

skip it... just skip it...

2
Rep
17
Offline
16:05 Oct-18-2019

LowSpecGamer™ autistic screeching intensifies

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:43 Oct-18-2019

I mean if you are fine playing modern games in 360p fine, but modern games don't look good in 360p due to tons of small details and such. Older games are fine though, pre PS3/Xbox 360 look good at 360p.

0
Rep
28
Online
20:52 Oct-17-2019

seems like a great upgrade from your 3900x

3
Rep
10
Offline
18:15 Oct-17-2019

sitting here with my R3 2200G cpu..its running fine all new games on tweaked high settinhs for more fps..

1
Rep
35
Offline
17:30 Oct-17-2019

Sorry wont go to AMD ever unless im on my death bed.

3
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
17:48 Oct-17-2019

Logic = 0.

20
Rep
35
Offline
17:33 Oct-18-2019

I dont trust AMD like even back when it was bad just wont do it. Even if its consider "Budget friendly" "lowest price cpu" like i want a cpu thats going to last me a long time not on a buget and is worth it. Thats why i love my intel.

2
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
18:51 Oct-18-2019

Both AMD and Intel CPUs are made from sillicon... I don't what you are talking about.
I have my father's AMD 386 PC still working... so yeah... My Athlon XP is still working, my Athlon 64 is still working, my Athlon 64 x2 is still working, my Pentium 3 is still working...
What drugs are you on, or where do you get your information? Do you think businesses would be buying AMD if they weren't reliable?


And up to the rx 5700 AMD had top notch GPU PCB component quality for their reference GPUs, much better than Nvidia's, now they are on par. An RX 580 reference has PCB components of th quality of a gtx 1080Ti(actually slightly better)...


So yeah.

4
Rep
35
Offline
16:57 Oct-19-2019

Cool you can say AMD is on par or better still won't change buddy as much as you want to try and make me change.

2
Rep
28
Online
16:04 Oct-17-2019

Well seeing as the next gen consoles will be 8 core zen 2 cpus - the next lowest specs for games are the consoles the ryzen 3700x seems perfect.

1
Rep
19
Offline
16:38 Oct-17-2019

i mean not really the clock speed will be much lower and games still love single core perf or "world thread performance" so a high clocked chip will be more than fine but at 1440p and above the CPU starts to take a backseat in most games anyway. Also not sure why my comment is up there its irrelevant nowadays

0
Rep
19
Offline
16:42 Oct-17-2019

since you really cant buy a bad CPU. I mean nothing on this list is a bad purchase outside of the 9980XE or ThreadRippers for gaming even then theyre not bad just a waste of money... id go for best value honestly or whatever is cheapest that gets close to the i9 9900k's perf in games since thats the top chip "today"

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
16:43 Oct-17-2019

well if leaks are to be beleived the PS5 will have a slightly upgraded Zen2 chip, Zen2.5 they call it.
Still I think that a custom, single die Zen2 at at least 3.0Ghz with 8 core/16thread will be in the PS5.


7nm scales poorly with clock speeds and voltage when increasing them, but ont he oposite end, it becomes very power efficient as you downclock and undervolt those Zen2 CPUs.

0
Rep
19
Offline
16:58 Oct-17-2019

wait single die? so its the die that will be used in the 3950X? hmm i thought it would be 2x2 4c die where are these leaks? i kinda dropped out of the loop on rumors but yeah i know TSMC's 7nm does poorly with clock speeds.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
17:46 Oct-17-2019

well it's a custom chip, doesn't have to be the die from the 3950x. Well I watch videos(actually I listen do them while doing the daily bs protocols and other bs university homework) for that and not really check their sources as I don't care about leaks and rumors, that's why I explicitely say it's a rumor or a leak.
Channels like RTU, Redtechgaming?, Gameranxx and others that youtube recommends me. not subscribed ot any of them.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:56 Oct-17-2019

Here is the leak info brand new:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xul_TpoDtLM

0
Rep
102
Offline
admin approved badge
16:01 Oct-17-2019

Why the heck did you add that stupid Intel Core i9-9980XE? I would get on Ryzen 9 3950x which costs roughly 750 dollars... Value is on the top for that AMD CPU and kills Intel Core i9-9980XE entirelly.

2
Rep
17
Offline
15:57 Oct-17-2019

Still trying to find the right CPU to upgrade from my 7700k. I thought the latest entry of Ryzen would be it but im not so sure. Feels like getting a 9900k is too late in the cycle now. Will eventually get the 3000 Series Nvidia GPU when its out so prefer not to get left behind on the CPU side.

0
Rep
2
Offline
15:20 Oct-17-2019

The higher your Resolution the less impact has your CPU on performance, cant be said enough here.

3
Rep
-3
Offline
15:13 Oct-17-2019

Best mid range is ryzen 3600 not 3600x wtf

7
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:59 Oct-17-2019

if we are to call it mid-range, it's not the 3600 it's the 2600. Half the price 15% lower performance with a rtx 2080Ti at 1080p or close to 0% or even 0% with weaker GPUs...

3
Rep
45
Offline
admin approved badge
15:02 Oct-17-2019

I think my CPU will last at least a couple more years. But I'll keep my eye on the new Ryzen cpu's.

0
Rep
4
Offline
17:57 Oct-17-2019

I doubt it. i3 9100 has a slight edge in most titles when compared to haswell i7 which is good for now, but when the new consoles come, our CPUs will be useless

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:02 Oct-17-2019

Ok... This is just bad.
The APU is true only if you don't buy a GPU, otherwise 95 euro for the r5 1600 or 110 euro for the r5 2600.


The R5 3000 series are double the price of the r5 1600/2600 and give you at most 15% more performance with a rtx 2080Ti, I dobut many people who are buying a RTX 2080Ti are considering a Ryzen 5 CPU.


And if this is a gaming list nobody would by the i9 9980XE as it's worse than the Ryzen 5s and core i5s and above and again a threadripper would be better.


Best low-end: r5 1600/2600 or the r3 2200G if you are not buying a dedicated GPU.
Best 300$ range: R7 3700x (still low-end)
Best mid-range: The r9 3900x and i9 9900k
Best high-end: Threadripper 2990WX(it's not for gaming, neither is the i9 9980XE)

5
Rep
80
Offline
admin approved badge
15:13 Oct-17-2019

your ranking was always weird and confusing for most of the people, like your low end is others mid range your 300$ is others high end and r9 and i9 are for enthusiast, i mean where did you hear someone saying i just bought one i9 9900k and its average not bad?

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:28 Oct-17-2019

There is no such thing as "my low-end" or "my high-end", a chip is low-end when a chip is low-end.


8 Zen2 cores are 80mm^2 and the I/O at 12nm is 125mm^2 or about 75mm^2 if it was 7nm. So a total of 155mm^2 max if it was all 7nm, they are using 12nm to cut costs and 12/16/20nm in 2019 is much cheaper than 7nm in 2019 so yeah. Going by the lowest process node dominator in this case 7nm.


The i9 9900k is 175-180mm^2 which is closer to mid-range than to low-end so yeah and 4x more cores for Zen2 puts it at 195mm^2 if it was all 7nm.


On the other hand Ryzen 5 1600/2600 are low-end too at 130mm^2, whereas the Ryzen 5 3600 is just tiny.


Neither Price, NOR Performance are a Chip Tier factor.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:32 Oct-17-2019

Now you can have older high-end chips that perform worse than modern low-end chips for example.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:35 Oct-17-2019

Now that I checked the r7 2700 appears to have finally gotten a price cut and is only 170 euro and 10-20% slower than the ryzen 7 3700x in games and that's when using a rtx 2080Ti, so yeah it might be a better purchase.
And the Ryzen 7 2700X is 190 euro too.


Basically Ryzen 3000 is worse value than Ryzen 2000 by a long shot.

0
Rep
80
Offline
admin approved badge
15:39 Oct-17-2019

i know thats same as gpus also thats how they should be ranked but no one care about die size and so thats why people are ranking them by price and peformance, its wrong but everyone is used to it


one thing is what is the chip and the other thing is what is that chip for people

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:45 Oct-17-2019

but the tier doesn't matter... -_-


Price/performance does.


Tier is just an abstract concept.


People mix them up so much...


Also, Relative price doesn't matter. Just because let's say Nvidia's rtx 2070 super costs 500$ MSRP doesn't mean that AMD's RX 5700XT is not overpriced at 400$ MSRP even if it gives (about)the same performance.


Pricing should be done based on what gross profit margin the company needs at the predicted sale volume/count


Currently AMD and Nvidia and soon intel when it ends its shortage are operating on such high profit margins that before 2015 they only happened when ATi and Nvidia were colluding/working together in the early 2000s and when there was lack of competition in the market... and there is competition right now in both the CPU and GPU market

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:48 Oct-17-2019

AMD in 2018 operated on a 38% Gross profit margins and in their financial reports they expected much higher ones from their 2019 products... a.k.a Zen2 and Navi...


This is Gross profit, a.k.a after all the expenses of R&D(for the year), expansion(if any), taxes, bills, production costs, shipping, etc, etc


What billion dollar company needs such GROSS Profits? NONE...

0
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
14:53 Oct-17-2019

that's a very well picked list in my opinion @Jon !
if I were buying cpu today with an idea of some futureproof-ness, Ryzen 3700X would be among my top choices for sure,
one thing to note though - according to reports all over the internet, majority of Ryzen cpus fail to boost at maximum advertised clocks, so despite the amazing value and performance, be aware written-spec 4.4GHz is usually not seen in real use;
and one note about the last cpu, eventually extreme cpus nowadays - that many threads are actually hitting the functional limitations of Windows 10 kernel architecture, so in certain situations an unexpected behaviour like audio dropouts and inferior performance despite the huge specs can be experienced, and it's up to every individual software and hardware developer to properly test, adjust and optimize the multithreaded workflows accordingly

3
Rep
383
Offline
senior admin badge
16:48 Oct-17-2019

Phew

0
Rep
1,041
Offline
senior admin badge
08:39 Oct-18-2019

here's a good video about that Ryzen boosting issue: https://youtu.be/DgSoZAdk_E8

0
Rep
35
Offline
14:44 Oct-17-2019

Best price-performance value... Cos that's what matters.
And that's where R5 3600 perfectly fits in.

23
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
15:03 Oct-17-2019

Nope, the r5 2600 is 110 euro basically half the r5 3600 at 210-220 euro while the r5 3600 is 15% faster best case scenario and that's with a RTX 2080Ti...

2
Rep
35
Offline
18:26 Oct-25-2019

I'm guessing your are talking about your country... Cos ----- SPOILER ALERT (this might actually shock you) ---- Not all countries have/follow single pricing !!!

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:25 Oct-25-2019

My country doesn't have PCpartpicker and Amazon(UK and DE), which is where I take prices from when I post them on GD, unless specifically I state that the prices are from my country.

0
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
21:26 Oct-25-2019

Just to be clear the r5 2600 is 95 euro in my country the r5 3600 is 199 euro currently, which is a surprise tbh, rarely do we have lower than average prices.

0
Rep
29
Offline
admin approved badge
16:20 Jul-24-2019

The i5-9600K is not a good mid-range processor.
A couple of years ago, an i5 offered outstanding performance, its 4 cores & high speed always good enough for gaming.
But, times have changed.
Many tech sites, including Gamers Nexus & Jayztwocents, have demonstrated the i5-9600K cannot handle many AAA games. The 6 cores are not enough, resulting in pronounced stuttering in games like Tomb Raider. Gamers Nexus does not recommend it for gaming.
The Ryzen R5 2600X is $100 less, its 6 cores & 12 threads resulting in a superior gaming experience.
Personally, I'm hoping the next generation i5 finally gets hyper threading. That's a processor I'd love to have powering my rig.

2
Rep
160
Offline
23:50 Jul-19-2019

updated list but still sucks, I mean even if i3 9100 was better than r5 2600 (basically same price) there still exists 9100f (no intergrated gpu) version that's 20-30% cheaper.


Also what's with the "ultimate high-end" cpu? I bet even an OCed i5 9600k would beat it in most games. Like seriously, you can build an entire gaming pc (or even 2) for the price of 9980xe with cpus that beat it in gaming lol

6
Rep
19
Offline
05:54 Jul-20-2019

It's also about context the OCed i5 makes all other CPU's look bad (kind of like AMD made the 9920XE look bad with 3900x but the i5 makes them look both bad hell R5 does the same thing). You are right price just doesn't scale right now with CPU purchases at all dumping more into GPU's will net you way more usableresult

3
Rep
19
Offline
05:57 Jul-20-2019

Well for gaming anyway R5 is much better in productivity and video editing and the 18 core 9980xe is unbeatable in that regard aswell. Only the 32core threadripper can challenge it but that thing has so many bugs in windows it's really only usable in linux where it smashes Intel CPU's like it should.

0
Rep
19
Offline
08:01 Jul-20-2019

Also if you have a 144Hz every frame matters and the i5 enables the smoothest and highest framerate you can get to maintain that FPS obviously for newer games you'll need a hefty GPU to power but if you stick to older games(RPG's) and esports like i do the 144 experience is worth every penny. For 60Hz i3,R3 is enough.

1
Rep
160
Offline
14:02 Jul-20-2019

well the article is called "5 best pc GAMING cpus...".
Not sure what do you mean by i5 making all other cpus look bad. I mean look at it's price, 250$ plus you need a decent cooler for that OC (like 50$). R5 3600 costs 100$ less when you consider cooler cost. You can use that difference to get a better gpu. It only makes more expensive cpus look bad if you're going purely for gaming (no other cpu intensive work).

0
Rep
19
Offline
15:43 Jul-20-2019

You literally contradicted yourself??? yes it makes them look bad in gaming that's what i said the tittle is Best GAMING cpu's.??? No point in buying above an i5 if you want the max frames for 144Hz. For 60Hz both r5 and i5 are a waste of money you can hit 60FPS on an i3,r3 easily and with that extra money buy GPU.

0
Rep
160
Offline
22:36 Jul-20-2019

How? You said "OCed i5 makes all other CPU's look bad". I understood this as it being best in price/performance which isn't the case since amd ryzen 5 cpus exist. Unless you meant best in price/performance with performance being satisfactory for 144 hz gaming? Not sure about that, looking at benchmarks on gamers nexus there are some games where it falls behind 9700k and 9900k. R5 3600 is like 10-15% slower on average. It all depends on how much you're willing to spend

0
Rep
160
Offline
22:44 Jul-20-2019

If you want absolute best take the 9900k. If you want almost that (like 98% perf) take 9700k. 9600k is like 85-90%. Then r5 3600 is probably at 70-75%. Of course this is all with top gpu, like 2080 ti. The worse the gpu, the lower the difference between cpus will be.


Also about getting the r3/i3, please don't be like GD (only looking at average fps). What's important are min/0.1%/1% lows and I doubt i3 with only 4 cores can compare in modern games

0
Rep
19
Offline
23:11 Jul-20-2019

The i5 is less than 5FPS slower you must be blind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AbNeht4tAE&t for 60Hz literally get the cheapest garabage CPU you can and dump the rest into GPU. Only diff is in AC O which has triple DRM if you think that represents experience on a wide range you are delusional. The diff

1
Rep
19
Offline
23:00 Jul-20-2019

is 10FPS in AC origins which is due to terrible DRM AC O and AC oddyssey has triple DRM. stop talking about mins and 0.1 when you have no experience with these chips for 60Hz you can run a trashcan CPU only your GPU matters. If you disagree with that buy the chips and prove me wrong. the i5 is 90-99% perf you are blind

1
Rep
19
Offline
23:06 Jul-20-2019

the only time r5 comes close to stock i5 is AC O oh what a suprise triple DRM trashes low thread CPU's.... the r5 is only a budget option to an i5 that's it. . look here https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/18427104 an R5 whatever the OC will never match single core n quad core of an i5 and games only care about that.

2
Rep
19
Offline
23:15 Jul-20-2019

And that's not me saying r5 is bad it's the versaility king after all. It's a jack of all trades but a winner at nothing. It's nowhere near better than the i5 at gaming but video editing and proff work is much better on it but it gets trashed by 9980xe and threadripper if time is money buy those chips.

1
Rep
19
Offline
23:25 Jul-20-2019

By the way the mins look far lower with an rtx 2080ti and SMT or HT chips since they both experience windows bugs due to scheduler issues you don't get that with an i5 or chips that don't feature SMT/HT. Again like i said for 144Hz trust me Intel provides a smoother expthan r5. But r5 clearly wins in proff works vid e

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
23:55 Jul-20-2019

Never think in raw fps numbers. 5fps, 10fps, they mean nothing, it's all percentages.
5fps from 100fps is 5%, 5fps from 30fps in 16.67%, that's how you see the performance difference.
10fps when you are getting 120fps is 8.3% difference for example.

1
Rep
160
Offline
00:15 Jul-21-2019

ok wtf, "...when you have no experience with these chips...? And you do? Please share your test results then.
Not sure about HT or SMT scheduler bugs being a big deal since in most cases 9900k is about equal or better than 9700k or 9600k that don't have HT. Besides things like that usually improve with time which is another factor to consider. More threads usually means more future proof.

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:41 Jul-21-2019

Nah nah i meant the i5 not the i9 you have no experience with it. Also you are completely ignoring the price of an i9 ITS DOUBLE of the i5 and in games the i5 with OC makes both the R9 and i9 look bad. It beats the r9 and gets within 5FPS of an i9 @ 5Ghz i hope i dont need to point out how much more power and heat i9

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:42 Jul-21-2019

the i9 and r9 chugs both consuming north of 150W in games and close to 300W or 250+W for the i9 at max synthetic load. Cmon man use the old noggin that's a clear value advantage the i5 has whether you want the r5 a jack of all trades or you care only about gaming pick whichever one suits your needs higher is overkill

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:45 Jul-21-2019

IF the i9 or r9 were 25-50% faster in games THEY are absolutely worth the price tag. But they are not, theyre nowhere near if you dont understand this i cant help you get it. Since this is my entire point the value on higher than an r5,i5 is absolute garbage man and for 60Hz you can easily get a lower end CPU.

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:48 Jul-21-2019

And this is gaming of course the thread is called GAMING CPU's for professional workloads where time is money 9980xe crushes Ryzen and whatever Intel has to offer on mainstream. Only Threadripper comes close but it has too many bugs in windows (there are some workarounds) to challenge it. Windows has some issue with 64

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:51 Jul-21-2019

64 threads i dont even think you can see them functioning correctly some more issues with the scheduler and the HT or SMT bug is absolutely a real thing it's been around for a long time that's why you can see the i5 outperform the i7 or the i9 causing the 1% lows to be worse on them. This is what makes the 144exp betr

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:53 Jul-21-2019

i Think the youtube channel is called level1techs or something he goes into more detail on windows and threadripper issues if you are interested some good stuff there about it you'll see what i mean about the HT or SMT scheduler problems aswell search level1techs threadripper and the first vid about windows fixes comes

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:57 Jul-21-2019

And as far as what psycho said about % numbers that irrelevant. Faster is faster and in gaming for higher HZ every single FPS matters. That's why intel can still say the i9 is the fastest gaming CPU cause it is only the i5,i7 @5Ghz+ challenge it while Ryzen never comes close(always 10% behind) which makes even less

0
Rep
19
Offline
10:59 Jul-21-2019

less sense since AMD HAS a BETTEr architecture and more power but you can easily tell AMD does less with more hardware and intel does more with less that's obvious the results speak for themselves. In a world where AMD's chips performed like they should they would be 25-50% faster just on the stats alone. But instead

0
Rep
19
Offline
11:03 Jul-21-2019

Also if you went to userbenchmark and looked at an r5 it's synthetic IPC is higher than stock Intel. Like 30% higher. WHERE IS THE PERFORMANCE. In games it still falls behind in every single one from a stock i5. Zero sense it's more powerful on paper. But with an OC and i5 now has much better IPC 30% higher and.

0
Rep
19
Offline
11:06 Jul-21-2019

and at 5Ghz i5 synthetic IPC matches that of an i9. But it also shows this in results performing within 5FPS of an i9 (less than 3%) perf difference. the r5 however falls even further behind from 10% to 20%+. Yes it costs less than the i5 but if you want 80-90% of the best value gaming chip the r5 is a good option.

0
Rep
19
Offline
11:08 Jul-21-2019

Another thing to remember is of course CPU performance doesn't get better over time or changes. so the i5 will always be faster. always. If we lived in the GPU world we could rely on finewine to improve things but we dont. Unless there are weird bugs or issues like threadripper the perf will stay the same.

0
Rep
19
Offline
11:10 Jul-21-2019

The only way to improve CPU performance is with an OC but Ryzen cant overclock 4.2 or 4.3 is possible but that is such a low clockspeed there is no point locking the chips to that. Just let PBO or turbo or whatever do it's thing. It barely makes a difference OC sucks on it just like with previous version which is shame

0
Rep
19
Offline
11:17 Jul-21-2019

But the i9 is still DOUBLE. DOUBLE the price of an i5. i5 250$ no VAT and i9 480$ no VAT. well not exactly double -.- but 20$ less it used to be double guess they slashed the price of it. It just aint worth it man unless its 30% faster on avg but its not. Also with massive price drops i can always slot the i9 later

0
Rep
19
Offline
11:18 Jul-21-2019

i9 later into my system if the i5 has some massive issues (that i dont see coming) in powering games at 144 for me. My first issue is the GPU i need to upgrade that first but if the i9 gets lowered by a lot like 150$ i would buy it but then i have to buy better cooling -.- ahhh no. Unless it gets faster which it wont.

0
Rep
19
Offline
11:21 Jul-21-2019

Im gonna hold on to the i5 until intels 7nm in 2021/2022 or whatever IF that even comes out. Knowing Intel it will be 2023 or 2025. That should bring a big boost in CPU perf also DDR5,PCIE 5.0 and stuff will be out. If AMD is faster in gaming at that time then i will buy their chips. If not Intel it's that simple.

0
Rep
160
Offline
14:00 Jul-21-2019

well r5 3600 is like 100$ less expensive than 9600k if you're OCing to 5ghz (since you need a decent cooler). 100$ more for 10-15% more performance is worth it for you? Even if you consider that games in future will probably use more threads?


Also don't you need a Z series mobo for OCing the i5? Which also adds some cost compared to some decent b450 for ryzen.


About cpu improving over time, check this

0
Rep
19
Offline
15:55 Jul-21-2019

the r5 is still overpriced. Psycho went into this a lot discussing it. Anyway my point is for 60Hz i would buy r5 1600 (110€ without VAT) even AMD can't beat their own value. The r5 is 30%avg faster at 80€ price. the i5 is 50%avg faster at another 80€. For 60Hz buy an older ryzen gen it's the best deal. Yes for 1

0
Rep
19
Offline
15:57 Jul-21-2019

yes for 10-20% im willing to pay 100€ more. People pay 260€ more for the i9 for 3-5% perf so take that for what it's worth. Imo for 144Hz every frame matters since if you can't maintain atleast 100FPS+ at all times your monitors refresh rate drops to compenstate. If you are on the edge the 10-20% makes the differen

0
Rep
19
Offline
16:00 Jul-21-2019

I've seen that video the 7700k still keeps up fine but its also 4 cores vs 6. Big difference the i5 was already 20% faster than 7700k when it came out. About more threads uhmm HT makes no difference in games look back at 2500k and 2600k they both struggle equally today even though one has 4 threads and the other 8.

0
Rep
19
Offline
16:06 Jul-21-2019

There are cheap motherboards but i dont buy those. Even if i went with Ryzen at the time lets say R7 2700x (60€ more than the i5) i still would have bought an x470 mobo. They cost the same as z390 boards atleast the ones i was looking at do. So the mobo wouldn't have made a diff and r7 is much slower (15-25%) than i5

0
Rep
160
Offline
20:22 Jul-21-2019

That's kind of an unfair comparison though, you'd get x470 and 2700x for no particular reason? Wouldn't r5 2600/b450 work basically same in games?


Well maybe those people who get 9900k need more cores for their work?


Also about threads, check this and this. I'm sure there are more.

0
Rep
160
Offline
20:27 Jul-21-2019

AMD can't beat their own value? Isn't that the case with basically all new product launches and more expensive products in general? Usually the more you pay the less you gain.

1
Rep
19
Offline
20:40 Jul-21-2019

Yes cause i buy motherboards of 2/3 of price of the CPU. I dont care if it performs the same there are more factors to motherboards. And i think the r5 is even slower than the r7 like 5%, i was shopping at the 300€ price range (or 250€ without VAT) for a CPU and the i5 was the best deal for me anyway.

0
Rep
19
Offline
20:41 Jul-21-2019

And as far as paying more and getting less is concerned that was my point after the i5 the scaling is terrible in value terms. Ofc im talking about gaming here and the i9 sucks in productivity compared to Ryzen only the iGPU quicksync is good. If you look at perf scaling up to an i5 you always gain by paying more.

1
Rep
19
Offline
20:52 Jul-21-2019

And lets say you go with the r5 3600 build today. r5 = 250€ (with VAT),b450 strix 150€,and same RAM at 150€. i5 build i5 9600kf 275€(plus 30€ for arctic 34 cooler), z390 strix 250€, RAM 16GB 150€, so that's 550 for r5 vs 705 for Intel. 155€ more for 10-20% yeah probably not worth it but it still scales

1
Rep
19
Offline
20:54 Jul-21-2019

scales better in performance than going up to an i7 or i9 would. At the time only Ryzen 2nd gen was out so the i5 was a lot more ahead but that distance has been closed in and next year they will probably be on top of each other in performance. Still a good deal for me but i payed more for it that's for sure. oh well

1
Rep
386
Offline
admin approved badge
22:12 Jul-19-2019

You should have just made another article, cuz now most comments are irrelevant.

4
Rep
15
Offline
admin approved badge
20:28 Jul-19-2019

... Wasn't this article just published the other day? I could have sworn I have seen it before.

8
Rep
-1
Offline
21:16 Jul-19-2019

You did, seems like an edit

0

Can They Run... |

| Low, 720p
Core i7-8750H 6-Core 2.2GHz GeForce GTX 765M 8GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Xeon Processor E5620 Radeon RX 570 4GB 8GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600H 6-Core 3.3GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11700K 8-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Ultra 16GB
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3080 16GB Mobile 32GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Core i5-6300HQ 2.3GHz GeForce GTX 960M 4GB 12GB
0% No [1 votes]
Core i5-3470 3.2GHz GeForce GTX 750 Ti Asus OC 2GB Edition 8GB
| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Intel HD Graphics 4600 Desktop 8GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 3500X 6-Core 3.6GHz GeForce RTX 3080 Gigabyte Eagle OC 10GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-9300H 4-Core 2.4GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB 16GB
0% No [2 votes]
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Radeon RX 570 XFX RS Black 4GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core 3.7GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Super MSI Ventus XS OC 6GB 16GB
100% Yes [4 votes]
Core i7-6700HQ 4-Core 2.6GHz GeForce GTX 950M v2 4GB 8GB
| 60FPS, Low, 720p
Core i3-9100F 4-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 970 Asus Strix OC 4GB Edition 32GB
50% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-2500 3.3GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte OC 4GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
Core i5-5200U 2.2GHz Intel HD Graphics 5500 Mobile 8GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1080p
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Radeon R9 280 Gigabyte WindForce 3X OC 3GB Edition 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 4k
Core i9-10900K 10-Core 3.7GHz GeForce RTX 3070 Gigabyte Vision OC 8GB 64GB
0% No [2 votes]
Core i5-3210M 2.5GHz Radeon HD 7500G 8GB
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen 5 2600X 6-Core 3.6GHz Radeon RX 5600 XT Sapphire Pulse 6GB 16GB
0% No [1 votes]