What Is the Best Ryzen 5 Cpu
These days, you're not suffering for choice if you're shopping for a new desktop CPU. Far from it! And that's true whether you're buying a new processor to build a gaming rig, one packed with cores for speedy content creation or media crunching, or a slice of silicon that aces all of those tasks. In mid-2019, AMD gave the desktop CPU market a hard reboot with the launch of the company's 7-nanometer-process Ryzen desktop CPUs (more about them in a minute), and today you'll get more cores and threads for your processing dollar than ever before. Archrival Intel, the traditional leader in the space, did its part by launching an 11th generation of its desktop processor line in 2021.
But how does that extra power—whether Intel or AMD—translate to frame-rate results in PC gaming? It's complicated, and it varies from game to game, as well as by combination of CPU and graphics card. Still, once you know the players in the chip market, their product families, and some general characteristics, you can weigh your budget against what you actually need. (For most shoppers who aren't esports pros, it's actually easy to overbuy.) Let's take a wide look at the processor landscape as of mid-2021, and then get down and dirty with each of the major chip families.
You Can Trust Our Reviews
Since 1982, PCMag has tested and rated thousands of products to help you make better buying decisions. (Read our editorial mission.)
The State of Gaming CPUs in 2021
It's been a wild last few years in the CPU space, and nowhere has the ride been bumpier than in Intel's car. The company has been public about its struggles to move its desktop CPU line from a 14nm lithography process down to 10nm, during which time AMD has leapfrogged Intel and moved its latest stack of mainstream Ryzen processors (the ones without integrated graphics) to 7nm technology. This brought a major leap forward in power and efficiency.
In mid-2020, Intel introduced new top-end mainstream processors in the form of the 10th Generation Core i9-10900K, Core i7-10700K, and Core i5-10600K (along with lesser versions in each family, and some lower-end Core i3 and Pentium/Celeron chips, too). These premium CPUs delivered some performance upticks, mostly by adding more processing threads in the middle of the stack. But as far as gaming goes, benchmarks prove that in most titles, you'll get better but not drastically better frame rates out of these 10th Gen chips compared to their 9th Generation equivalents.
Things got even more muddled with the company's early 2021 launch of its 11th Generation "Rocket Lake-S" chips. While the midrange Core i5 through top-end Core i9 processors saw a refreshed approach combining 14nm lithography with the architecture of 10nm "Ice Lake," the new Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron lines were dubbed "Comet Lake Refresh." The latter are boosted by 100MHz from their "Comet Lake-S" predecessors, and for the most part the real-world performance difference will be negligible.
Rocket Lake, meanwhile, is a bit of a grab bag. The Intel Core i5-11600K impressed us with frame rates that nearly kept pace with AMD's stellar midrange offerings (more on them in a minute), but the flagship Core i9-11900K was disappointing. The chip debuted at a higher street price than the Core i9-10900K ($619 versus $599), despite having two fewer cores onboard (eight versus 10). Not only that, but in our testing we found a host of thermal and power limitations that meant ho-hum gaming results, though to be fair that was more an issue of our test motherboard's prerelease BIOS stability than the fault of the processor. Nevertheless, it's hard to think of the Core i9-11900K as anything but a price/performance fizzle. The eight-core Core i7 Rocket Lake chip we tested proved to be a much better gamer value.
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
Now on to AMD. From a gaming perspective, the most interesting parts of the Ryzen story are at the economical end of the Ryzen 3000 stack and with the latest fourth-generation Ryzen 5000 series.
Let's start with the low-end 3000 series chips. AMD's Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X are 2020 releases that make use of a new type of CCD design (in short, how the transistors are organized on the die), which reduces the latency—the time it takes for different parts of the processor to talk to one another—compared to the 2019 Ryzens. This can result in lower frame rates, though it's very much dependent on the game and how well optimized it is. AMD says this is all down to improved "Zen 2" manufacturing yields and a better understanding of the 7nm process technology.
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
The result of all that fine-tuning? Despite costing just $120 (list price, at least, more about which in a moment), the four-core, eight-thread Ryzen 3 3300X matches up very well against the more expensive six-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X in almost every game we tried. And yes, that means it also beats just about anything Intel can throw its way at the same price point.
We say "just about" because Intel has lately been waging a price war with AMD in the mid- and low range. The Intel Core i5-10400 was roughly on par with the Ryzen 3 3300X in our gaming tests, but the Intel part is still selling for its original MSRP of $149.99 while AMD is struggling to keep its chips on shelves—the Ryzen 3 3300X is in such high demand that at this writing it costs $170 at Newegg and a whopping $265 at Amazon. Throughout 2020 and 2021, AMD's stock squeeze and supply-and-demand pricing problems have been second only to Nvidia's.
But AMD has never been content to rest on its laurels, and the launch of the Ryzen 5000 series has raised the bar. We've tested every chip in the stack so far, and the results in our gaming benchmarks are very good for AMD.
Though the company had issues with spreading its dies across multiple CCDs in some "Zen 2" options like the Ryzen 5 3600X, the "Zen 3" architecture fixes that. With CPUs like the Ryzen 5 5600X, AMD has streamlined the design, centralizing eight cores into each individual CCD—more than any game could reasonably use at one time (even for pure AI tasks such as calculating enemy turns in the Civilization series). This has made for some serious frame-rate gains, as well as boosting productivity tasks and digital content creation.
In the few areas where AMD was trailing Intel at the sunset of the Ryzen 3000 series, ground has been made up (and then some) with the launch of the Ryzen 5000s. If you can find one for a reasonable price, a Ryzen 5000 series chip will always outpace Intel on cost of adoption and gaming and workstation performance, as well as overall socket compatibility across "Zen" generations.
Integrated vs. Dedicated Graphics
While more cores, higher clock speeds, and the latest chip architectures are all nice things to have, picking the best processor for gaming is about more than basic specs and speeds. Let's jump into some of the considerations to keep in mind when shopping for a gaming CPU before diving into our favorite recent picks.
Most people searching for a processor for PC gaming are going to be using a dedicated graphics card with it. A specific graphics card's frame rates will vary in a given game when paired with different CPUs, though generally the amount of sway that is attributable to the CPU largely depends on the display resolution you're using.
If you're gaming at what's by far the most common mainstream resolution, 1080p (1,920 by 1,080 pixels), the variance can be substantial. That's because, with some games, 1080p or lower resolutions are just as dependent on the single-core frequency of your CPU as on the outright power of your GPU.
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
For gamers playing at today's realistic resolution peak of 4K (3,840 by 2,160 pixels), the inverse is true: The higher you go in resolution, the more the limiter is your graphics card rather than your CPU. As a rule of thumb, high-resolution gamers should invest more in their graphics cards, while those playing at 1080p or below should look for a processor with the highest single-core boost frequency they can afford, along with a video card suited to the resolution they play at.
Again, however, there are no absolutes. A lot of this varies by game and game genre. For example, performance in a game like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with the latest additions of ray tracing and DLSS, is going to be highly dependent on the graphics card you buy. Games like Civilization VI, on the other hand, need to render a lot of troops, AI, and math equations to run properly and are much more dependent on your CPU than GPU, and this isn't just restricted to RTS or strategy games, either.
To illustrate the variance at play, here's a quick roundup of some recent, representative mainstream and high-end desktop (HEDT) processors and some selected gaming benchmarks. We tested them all with an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti card to level the playing field and take the GPU out of the equation up to the point of 4K resolution. Here are the results we saw with mainstream CPUs (Intel's newest Rocket Lake Core i9 and Core i5 are up top)...
Games like CS:GO, as you can see, are more sensitive to the CPU than others. The faster the single-core frequency of your processor, the better your frame rates will be at the resolutions where that kind of thing matters (for example, on a 240Hz monitor running at 1080p). Likewise, the more robust the CPU, the faster your turns in Civilization VI will process. But the more beefy your graphics card, the better your textures will look in Apex Legends, and the more light rays you'll see rendered in games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider or Metro: Exodus. The characteristics of the game can matter as much as the hardware.
Now, the above illustrations assume you have a reasonable or better graphics card. You can certainly play games with the integrated graphics baked into Intel's mainstream processors and AMD's APUs (the company's handful of lower-end chips that combine a CPU and graphics on the die). But you'll be relegated to low settings and resolutions, and demanding modern titles will likely not be playable at acceptable frame rates (generally 30 or more frames per second), even with well-optimized games like Fortnite.
(Photo: John Burek)
It's also important to mention that most of AMD's Ryzen processors, from the lower-end Ryzen 3 and 5 chips (though notably not the Ryzen 3 3200G and Ryzen 5 3400G) to the hyper-powerful Ryzen Threadrippers, lack integrated graphics. So with those options, you'll definitely need a dedicated graphics card.
The same is true of Intel's enthusiast Core X-Series CPUs. These HEDT chips must have a video card paired with them, too. So be sure to pick either a G-series processor from AMD or a mainstream Intel Core i3, Core i5, or Core i7 if you want to make do without a graphics card. Late-model Intel CPUs will use a form of what the company calls HD or UHD Graphics as their integrated graphics silicon, though neither the widely available Intel UHD Graphics 630 or newer Intel Iris Xe Graphics are much good for anything beyond web-based gaming. Note that Intel has introduced some mainstream processors that have the integrated graphics disabled; their model numbers end in F (for instance, Core i9-11900KF) and they can save you a few bucks if you know you're going to use a dedicated video card.
For gaming on a very tight budget, with no chance of buying a graphics card, you'll want to consider AMD's latest "Picasso" APUs like the Ryzen 3 3200G or Ryzen 5 3400G, which integrate the company's Radeon Vega 8 or 11 graphics silicon. (Higher-end Ryzen 5 and 7 5000G Series APUs, based on Zen 3 architecture, are coming.) Don't expect the performance of a discrete GPU, but these chips are about as good as integrated graphics get at the moment. Still, anyone serious about building or upgrading a PC that can play all types of games will want to budget for a real graphics card.
AMD announced those newest APUs, the Ryzen 5000G Series, at Computex 2021, with an expected release date in August. They include models in both the G and GE flavors we've come to know, and will increase the number of onboard graphics cores to as many as eight in the Ryzen 7 5700G. Unlike the Ryzen 4000G Series chips, which were quietly launched all as OEM-only options in 2020, AMD says it has plans to release some of its Ryzen 5000G Series chips to OEMs only, but with a Ryzen 5 5600G and the Ryzen 7 5700G available at retail for upgraders and PC builders.
In Games, Do More Cores Equal More Power?
Technically, yes, but there's catches and caveats. AMD has been running laps around Intel for the last few years in terms of cost-per-core value, a boon for anyone who uses a lot of multithreaded applications. It wasn't long ago that eight-core CPUs were out of reach for most buyers, but thanks to the Ryzen revolution of recent years, eight-, 12-, and even 16-core processors are affordable options for many.
This means that for users who use their desktops for both gaming and digital content creation, AMD is often the stronger choice. The general trend, all else being equal, is that the more cores crammed onto a CPU die, the lower the peak single-core frequency will be.
Currently, though, few games know how to take advantage of more than four cores at once, so you can much more easily get away with spending less on a four- or six-core processor (of which both AMD and Intel have several strong offerings). Although games like Grand Theft Auto V have been seen using six cores on occasion, and specific titles like Civilization VI use all available cores when calculating AI turns, extra cores often lie dormant during your gaming sessions unless you're, say, streaming your game to Twitch while playing.
Consider Monitor Resolution and Refresh Rate
Unless you have a fancy, late-model flat screen built specifically for gaming (it'll advertise extra-high refresh rates on its bezel or box), it's safe to assume that your LCD monitor tops out at 60Hz. That's fine for most gaming purposes: it means you'll be able to see frame rates up to 60 frames per second (fps).
Keep in mind, though, that if your CPU and GPU push a game beyond that frame rate, your monitor won't actually display those extra frames. So it's futile to overspend on your processor and graphics card to achieve loads of performance that you can't see. With an ordinary LCD monitor, a frame rate consistently but not too much above 60fps in your favorite games is the sweet spot.
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
Competitive, fast-paced gamers, however, swear by high-refresh-rate screens. And hardware makers have been upping their game with 120Hz and faster monitors, to the point where Asus has released a model that hits a staggering 360Hz. So if you have (or are thinking of buying) a gaming monitor with a high refresh rate, you'll need to spend more on a graphics card to push those extra frames, and in some cases a beefier processor to keep up. That's because most high-refresh-rate monitors are limited to 1080p native resolution, although there are some ultra-fast 1440p (the 240Hz HP Omen X 27) and even 4K (the Acer Predator XB3) displays. But 1080p is by far the heart of the market, and at that resolution gaming performance is more limited by the CPU than the graphics card, assuming you've bought a good enough card for 1080p play.
Right now, the refresh-rate waypoints above 60Hz are 100Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, 165Hz, 240Hz, and 360Hz, with the last only mattering for multiplayer titles like CS:GO, Rainbow Six: Siege, League of Legends, and DOTA 2. But it never hurts to have more refresh-rate headroom when the only thing standing between you and a clean kill is the number of times your screen is updating per second.
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
"How much is too much?" is always a key question, however. If you have an ordinary 1080p, 60Hz monitor and a graphics card good enough to push a bit above 60fps, there's no point in hand-wringing over the minute differences in frame rates between like-priced CPUs. Only folks with high-refresh-rate displays should obsess over the difference between, say, 140fps and 160fps, and even then only if involved in competitive esports.
In short, which CPU you choose matters more as you step down the resolution ladder. All else being equal, at higher resolutions, your graphics card sets the limits.
Do You Need PCI Express 4.0?
If you saw the shiny new "PCIe 4.0 Ready!" spec on the box of your new X570 or B550 motherboard for an AMD gaming CPU, you can't be faulted for thinking it's a technology must-have in order to stay competitive with the rest of the gaming world. When the spec sheet for Sony's PlayStation 5 was unveiled, many gamers turned straight to the CPU and GPU to see what the next generation of gaming might have in store. But one area that was initially glossed over could end up being just as important: storage speeds.
For years, the major consoles stored games on slow, platter-based hard drives that could only stream gaming data at an average of around 100MBps. This bottleneck has proven to be a big issue for game developers, and it's why in many current AAA titles you'll find your characters going into elevators, waiting behind doors, or slowly squeezing their way through a path before you get to the next part of a level: The rest of the game simply hasn't loaded yet, and that time-killing animation is the only thing standing between you and a jumble of incomplete textures.
(Image: Sony)
This is all changing with the advent of new consoles and the introduction of the PCI Express 4.0 bus into the mainstream. Some developers have hailed PCIe 4.0 as allowing a new era for gaming, one that will permit massive worlds to be loaded and streamed into the player's flow at speeds that the hard drives of yesteryear could never imagine.
As of mid-2021, PCIe 4.0 storage is only a thing on AMD desktops built around three leading-edge chipsets (the Ryzen-relevant X570 and B550 and Threadripper TRX40), and on some of the very latest 500-series Intel platforms used with Rocket Lake 11th Generation CPUs. Does this mean you need to future-proof your next gaming PC with a PCIe 4.0-capable motherboard and compatible CPU? Not exactly.
(Image: AMD)
First, load-time bottlenecks apply only to single-player titles. To maintain a level playing field in an online match, multiplayer games will load an entire map and included assets before gameplay starts. And while PCIe 4.0 solid-state drives will certainly load this data quicker than hard drives, ultimately it becomes a bit of a "slowest camper" situation in which the bear will attack only once everyone is ready.
Second, PCIe 4.0 as a staple of game development is some time away. It will be a fun selling point for systems like the PS5, but its real-world implementation across both consoles and PCs at a universal level is still at least a year in the future. Game publishers don't want to restrict their titles to tiny audiences, so don't expect to see PCIe 4.0 SSDs in games' minimum PC requirements anytime soon. So while it's never a bad idea to future-proof your system if you have the cash, a Z590, X570, or B550 motherboard won't give you any extreme advantage over a current-gen PCIe 3.0-only Intel or AMD platform. Live for today, not for the far future.
Overclocking: Does It Save Money?
One way that some cash-strapped gamers try to bridge the gap between their wallets and their dream builds is to overclock the CPU to approach the performance of a costlier chip.
Intel makes it easy to figure out which of its processors are overclockable and which aren't: Just look for a "K" at the end of the model number, which indicates an unlocked processor ready for overclocking out of the box. As for AMD, essentially all of its desktop processors released in the past several years are overclockable to your heart's content (within reason, of course).
But before you rush off to buy a cheap CPU with the expectation of tripling its gigahertz, consider a few things. First, there's the added cooling you'll need: You don't want to overclock a processor while using the standard fan and heatsink combo that came with it. Such coolers are rated to handle the CPU at its regular clock speed; anything above that and you risk giving your PC heat stroke (or making it throttle back performance for its own safety, which is counterproductive).
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
Aftermarket air coolers are relatively effective at keeping overclocked processors cool, but they have their limits (especially during the summer months, if you live where it's hot air in, hot air out). In general, expect to spend roughly $30 to $60 on a sufficiently able air cooler, depending on how high you plan to clock your processor.
For anyone serious about pushing their CPU to its absolute limits, liquid cooling is the way to go; Intel's and AMD's highest-end chips demand it. But with great cooling power comes great cooling responsi—wait, that's not the line. Great amounts of money, that's the one.
Basic liquid-cooling setups can be relatively cheap, but most are little more effective than their similarly priced air-cooling counterparts—a more complicated installation for minimal gain. Be ready to spend $60 to $150 for a closed-loop liquid-cooling system powerful enough to keep an overclocked CPU cool.
(Photo: John Burek)
Second, be aware that, at least in Intel's case, the cost difference between an overclockable and non-overclockable processor can be significant. For example, the Core i7-10700K retails for $349, while the standard Core i7-10700 is only $323.
In short: Overclocking a high-end Intel CPU may seem like a cheap way to get more bang for your buck, but it likely isn't. AMD overclocking may be slightly cheaper, depending on the chip in question, but you'll still need to shell out for added hardware (and maybe a larger case to fit a liquid cooler's radiator). So make sure to incorporate those costs into your build budget before pulling the trigger.
Most of the time? The extra money you'd spend on cooling gear is simply better spent on a next-step-up processor. It's safer and much less hassle.
2021's CPU Families Explained
Here, we're going to help gamers get a more rounded picture of the benefits and drawbacks of each of today's key processor families. The breakdown below lists exactly what each chip brings to the proverbial table. If you'd like to learn more, head on over to our overall Best CPUs deep dive, which covers this topic in even greater detail.
Intel 9th, 10th, and 11th Generation Core
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
The 9th Gen Core line ("Coffee Lake-S") works with the LGA 1151 socket on motherboards with 300-series chipsets (not 100- and 200-series chipsets), while the 10th Gen Core line ("Comet Lake-S") works with the Z490 and other 400-series chipsets, and the LGA 1200 socket. The 11th Generation ("Rocket Lake-S") Core line of chips works on the same socket but needs 500-series chipsets (such as the Z590) to fully leverage all their features.
PROS
-
Good choice for gamers who need the absolute fastest frame rates, regardless of price
-
Integrated graphics provided in all CPUs (except "F"-suffix ones)
CONS
Recommended by Our Editors
-
Confusing socketing protocol for 9th Generation chips can make motherboard purchases tricky
-
Only more expensive "K"-suffix parts can be overclocked (and even then, not by much without good cooling gear, expertise, and patience)
-
High-end 9th, 10th, and 11th Gen processors require separate, heavy-duty cooling (no stock cooler) and a beefy power supply
-
Most midrange 9th Gen chips lack Hyper-Threading (only one processing thread per core)
(Examples: See our reviews of the Core i7-9700K, the Core i9-9900K, the Core i5-10600K, the Core i9-10900K, the Core i7-11700K, and the Core i9-11900K.)
Intel Core X-Series
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
The latest Core i9 10000X processors, known by the codename "Cascade Lake-X," use Intel's LGA 2066 socket. The same socket supports the previous-gen "Skylake-X Refresh" or "Basin Falls" 9000X series CPUs.
PROS
-
The most powerful consumer CPUs that Intel makes: good for gaming and everything else
-
Great for gamers who stream simultaneously on Twitch or also use their PCs as creative workstations
-
Designed for multiple-video-card SLI or CrossFireX setups and lots of PCIe storage, with support for extra CPU-bound PCI Express lanes
CONS
-
Overkill for most gamers, both in performance and price
-
Motherboards with the required X299 chipset are expensive
-
No integrated graphics
-
No bundled stock coolers
(Examples: See our reviews of the Core i9-9980XE Extreme Edition and the Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition.)
AMD Ryzen
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
All Ryzen CPUs from the first and second generation ("Summit Ridge" and "Pinnacle Ridge"), as well as the current third-gen ("Matisse") and fourth-gen ("Vermeer"), work on the AMD AM4 socket. Some older boards don't work with newer chips and vice versa, so check the details before buying. But the continuity of the AM4 socket is far greater than on Intel's platforms of recent years.
PROS
-
Strong value pick for most system builders
-
"Zen 2" chips are top values for gamers who can't spend a fortune
-
All chips are unlocked for overclocking
-
"Zen 3" processors are record-setting speed machines
CONS
-
All Ryzens without "G" suffix lack integrated graphics
(Examples: See our reviews of the Ryzen 7 2700X, the Ryzen 3 3300X, the Ryzen 5 5600X, the Ryzen 7 5800X, the Ryzen 9 5900X, and the Ryzen 9 5950X.)
AMD Ryzen G Series
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
All Ryzen G processors (the "Raven Ridge" 2000G and "Picasso" 3000G series, as well as the "Vermeer" 4000G and "Cezanne" 5000G series) work on the AMD AM4 socket, like ordinary Ryzens do, but they require a motherboard with an appropriate video-out port if you want to use the integrated graphics. Not all AM4 motherboards (especially high-end ones) have video ports, so be sure to check before committing to one of these chips.
PROS
-
Made for gamers on a budget
-
Has integrated graphics processor (IGP)
-
The mainstream's best integrated graphics if you can't afford a video card
CONS
-
IGP not powerful enough for serious gamers
-
CPU performance is lesser than equivalent Ryzen 3 and 5 CPUs without integrated graphics
-
Requires a motherboard with video-out for IGP use, and not all AM4 boards have one
(Examples: See our reviews of the Ryzen 3 2200G, the Ryzen 3 3200G, and the Ryzen 5 3400G. A few Ryzen 5000G chips are coming to retail in August 2021.)
AMD Ryzen Threadripper
(Photo: Zlata Ivleva)
The first- and second-generation Threadrippers ("Whitehaven" and "Colfax") work on motherboards with the X399 chipset and a socket called TR4. The newest third-gen ("Castle Peak") Threadrippers use a new TRX40 chipset and a socket dubbed sTRX4.
PROS
-
Good for gamers who stream simultaneously on Twitch or also use their PCs as creative workstations
-
Lots of headroom for multitasking
CONS
-
Large die sizes demand high-end, aftermarket cooling solutions; no stock cooler included
-
AMD X399 and TRX40 motherboards are expensive
-
Like the Intel Core X-Series, way overkill for most single-graphics-card gamers
(Examples: See our reviews of the Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, the Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX, the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, and the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X.)
So Which CPU Should I Buy for Gaming?
All this is a lot to digest, we know. Let's run through a few common scenarios based on our earlier discussions.
BUDGET SHOPPERS. Let's assume that you intend to add a dedicated graphics card (and you absolutely should if you can), that gaming performance matters more to you than content-creation muscle, and that you have $100 to $150 to spend on a CPU. We recommend the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X, assuming you're building a new PC or already have an AM4 motherboard. If you can't afford a separate video card, the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is the way to go, with the best integrated graphics of the day.
THOSE INVESTED IN INTEL PLATFORMS. If you're an Intel diehard with an existing 300-series LGA 1151 motherboard, any compatible Core i5 or i7 CPU from the 8000 or 9000 series (say, the Core i7-9700K) should suit you just fine for at least a few years. (The Core i9s are excellent chips, too, but require liquid cooling.) Rather than upgrading to a new platform like 10th or 11th Generation Core and a Z490 or Z590 chipset motherboard, we recommend investing in a more powerful graphics card instead.
HIGH-REFRESH GAMING ABOVE ALL. If cost isn't your main concern and your high-refresh-rate 1080p monitor makes you crave max frame rates, the Intel Core i9-10900K with a new Z490 motherboard delivers the the best performance the company has to offer with a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti graphics card that we've seen.
Meanwhile, our testing shows that the $449 AMD Ryzen 7 5800X offers up even better 1080p performance than the $549 (street) Core i9-10900K—and remains compatible with AMD's venerable Socket AM4, instead of requiring a whole platform upgrade. Those who own older motherboards will want to check to be sure they have a Ryzen 5000 series-compatible BIOS, but when it comes to platform continuity (and the price savings that come with it), AMD simply can't be beat.
GAMING ALONGSIDE CONTENT CREATION. If you're both an avid gamer and a workstation professional, the AMD Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 9 5900X are appealing options. These six- and 12-core CPUs (respectively) are great for tasks that use all the cores and threads they can get. Mega-core monsters like the Ryzen 9 5950X certainly can game, but there's a point of diminishing returns where the higher core count reduces the single-threaded max boost clock speed, which can ultimately affect peak frame rates depending on the game.
If you're spending a few hundred dollars apiece on your CPU and graphics card, now might be a good time to upgrade your monitor, too—say, going from a 60Hz 1080p panel to a 165Hz 1440p screen or something in the 4K range. With higher resolution, the frame-rate difference between an AMD Ryzen and a late-model Intel Core is almost certain to narrow.
Below you'll find more details on the top AMD and Intel processors for gaming PCs, along with links to full reviews. If you're building a new system from scratch, you'll also want to take a look at our recommendations for the best M.2 SSDs and PC tower cases. Or if you'd rather buy a balanced off-the-shelf model, you can check out our favorite gaming desktops, too.
Source: https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-cpus-for-gaming