The best CPU for gaming right now is the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition, because its 3D V-Cache directly reduces the memory-latency stalls that cap frame rate and 1% lows in CPU-bound titles, and its 16 cores mean it won’t age out even as game engines lean harder on more threads. Picking a gaming CPU is less about raw core count than most buyers assume: cache size and single-thread behavior decide your fps ceiling at 1080p and 1440p, while core count mostly matters for what’s running in the background. Below we cover eight CPUs from AMD’s current X3D lineup down to previous-generation AM4 parts, so you can match the right chip to your resolution, budget and how long you want the platform to last.
Top 3 picks at a glance
Top picks at a glance
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
![AMD Ryzen 7 5700X Octa-core [8 Core] 3.40 GHz Processor](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/21GyRG22EqL._SL160_.jpg)
| Model | Key spec | Price | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition | 16-core, dual V-Cache dies, AM5 | $889.00 | Highest-end 1080p/1440p gaming plus heavy multitasking |
| Micro Center AMD 9800X3D + MSI X870E Gaming Plus WF | 8-core X3D bundled with motherboard | $729.99 | Simplified AM5 build with guaranteed compatibility |
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + TUF Gaming X870-PLUS WiFi | 8-core X3D bundled with motherboard | $674.98 | Best value bundle on the current X3D chip |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D 16-Core | 16-core, single V-Cache die, AM5 | $599.00 | Flagship gaming plus productivity without dual-die pricing |
| AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D 12-Core | 12-core, AM5, 3D V-Cache | $549.99 | Balanced core count for gaming and moderate multitasking |
| AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D 6-Core | 6-core, AM5, 3D V-Cache | $239.99 | Budget entry into AM5 X3D gaming performance |
| AMD Ryzen 7 5700X Octa-core | 8-core, AM4, no V-Cache | $185.99 | Budget AM4 upgrade for existing socket owners |
| AMD Ryzen 7 5700 8-Core | 8-core, AM4, 65W, bundled cooler | $159.99 | Lowest-cost 8-core gaming CPU on AM4 |
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition
The “Dual Edition” naming refers to a dual-die V-Cache implementation, effectively stacking cache resources across both CCDs rather than the single-CCD cache approach on the standard 9950X3D. For gaming specifically, most engines only meaningfully benefit from the cache on the CCD their primary thread is scheduled to, so the practical fps gain over the standard 9950X3D is likely smaller than the price gap suggests, though the dual configuration should help more in cache-sensitive multi-threaded workloads outside pure gaming.
At $889.00, this is the most expensive CPU on this list, and 16 cores across two CCDs is genuinely more than any current game needs; the appeal here is longevity and multitasking headroom rather than a clear fps advantage over cheaper X3D chips. Estimated 1080p gaming performance in cache-sensitive titles like Microsoft Flight Simulator or a strategy title should land at or near the top of this list, roughly on par with the standard 9950X3D, since both share the same core architecture and clock targets.
Socket AM5 compatibility means this chip drops into any current AM5 motherboard, and AMD’s stated platform longevity commitment for AM5 makes this a reasonable “buy once” chip for someone who wants to skip a CPU upgrade cycle entirely. Power draw on 16-core X3D parts runs higher than 6 or 8-core siblings under full multi-core load, so a capable cooler and case airflow matter more here than on the smaller chips further down this list.
Priya Raghunathan, GPU & CPU Analyst, notes on her instrumented testbench that dual-CCD chips generally show more thread-scheduling variance run to run in games than single-CCD parts, since the OS scheduler has to decide which CCD hosts the game’s primary thread; Windows 11’s scheduler has improved at this but it’s not perfectly consistent.
- Pros
- 16 cores with dual V-Cache dies for gaming plus heavy background multitasking
- AM5 socket longevity protects this as a long-term platform investment
- Top-tier single-thread performance carries over from the 9000 series architecture
- Cons
- $889.00 price doesn’t translate to a proportional fps gain over the standard 9950X3D for pure gaming
- Dual-CCD thread scheduling can introduce run-to-run variance in some titles
- Overkill core count for anyone who isn’t also streaming or running heavy background workloads
Who it’s for: enthusiasts who want the highest core count on the X3D lineup and plan to keep the platform for years.
Micro Center AMD 9800X3D Processor with MSI X870E Gaming Plus WF Motherboard
This bundle pairs the single-CCD 9800X3D, widely regarded as the current sweet spot for pure gaming fps, with MSI’s X870E Gaming Plus WF motherboard at $729.99. Buying CPU and board together sidesteps the usual research into chipset compatibility, VRM quality and BIOS support, since the retailer has already validated the pairing.
The 9800X3D’s single CCD means its full 3D V-Cache sits directly under whichever core is handling the game’s primary thread, avoiding the cross-CCD latency concerns of dual-die parts like the 9950X3D2 above. Estimated 1080p gaming performance should be at or near the top of any current CPU chart, since this chip’s 8 cores and cache configuration are specifically tuned for gaming workloads rather than balanced against heavy multi-core productivity use.
The X870E chipset on the bundled MSI board supports PCIe 5.0 for both the GPU slot and at least one M.2 slot, plus WiFi 7 connectivity, giving this bundle a modern feature set that should remain relevant through at least one future CPU generation on the AM5 socket. X870E sits at the higher end of AM5 chipsets, so expect stronger VRM design than budget B650 boards, useful if you plan to run this chip at higher power limits.
Priya Raghunathan’s bench work on single-CCD X3D chips shows more consistent frame time behavior than dual-CCD parts, since there’s no cross-die cache traffic to manage; this consistency shows up more in 1% low metrics than in average fps numbers.
- Pros
- Single-CCD X3D design avoids cross-die latency, generally the strongest pure-gaming architecture available
- Bundle removes compatibility guesswork between CPU and motherboard
- X870E chipset brings PCIe 5.0 and WiFi 7 for platform longevity
- Cons
- $729.99 bundle price is a large jump over buying just the CPU with a cheaper B650 board
- 8 cores is plenty for gaming but limits headroom for simultaneous streaming or heavy encoding
- Bundle locks you into MSI’s specific board rather than shopping for the cheapest compatible X870E option
Who it’s for: buyers who want a hassle-free, high-end single-CCD gaming build without separately vetting motherboard compatibility.
AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + TUF Gaming X870-PLUS WiFi
The same 9800X3D chip as the bundle above, paired instead with ASUS’s TUF Gaming X870-PLUS WiFi board, at $674.98, roughly $55 less than the Micro Center bundle. Both bundles put you on the same CPU silicon, so gaming performance is effectively identical; the differentiator is motherboard brand, VRM design specifics and included features like WiFi standard and rear I/O layout.
ASUS’s TUF line targets durability with military-grade component certifications and typically strong VRM cooling for the price tier, which matters if you intend to run the 9800X3D at elevated power limits for extra headroom, though the chip’s stock performance is already near the top of gaming charts without tuning. Estimated 1080p performance mirrors the Micro Center bundle closely given the identical CPU: strong 1% lows and average fps across most current titles due to the single-CCD V-Cache design.
X870-PLUS sits at the same chipset tier as the Gaming Plus WF board above, so both bundles offer PCIe 5.0 support and modern connectivity; the practical choice between them often comes down to case aesthetic preference, specific port layout, or whichever bundle is in stock at the moment.
Priya Raghunathan notes that motherboard choice affects gaming fps far less than CPU choice does, generally under 1-2% difference between comparable chipset-tier boards, so this decision matters more for build quality, connectivity and aesthetics than for frame rate.
- Pros
- Same top-tier single-CCD X3D gaming chip as the pricier bundle above
- Roughly $55 cheaper than the Micro Center equivalent bundle
- TUF-series durability certifications and typically robust VRM design
- Cons
- Still an 8-core chip, so heavy background multitasking has less headroom than 12 or 16-core options
- Locks you into ASUS’s board choice rather than comparison shopping the X870 tier
- No meaningful gaming performance difference versus the Micro Center bundle, so the “best” choice is mostly price and board features
Who it’s for: buyers who want the same top gaming CPU as the Micro Center bundle at a slightly lower price.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D 16-Core
The standard, single-die-cache version of the flagship, at $599.00, a meaningful $290 less than the Dual Edition above while offering the same 16 cores. For gaming, the practical difference between this and the Dual Edition is small since games mostly use one CCD’s worth of cache anyway; you’re paying for extra headroom in non-gaming multi-core workloads either way.
Estimated 1080p gaming performance should be very close to the 9800X3D bundles above in titles that fit within one CCD’s cache and thread count, with the extra 8 cores providing more value once you add background streaming, video encoding, or heavy multitasking on top of gaming. AM5 socket compatibility carries the same longevity benefit as every other chip on this list, dropping into any current AM5 board.
Power and thermal demands scale up with the extra cores versus the 9800X3D chips, so budget for a stronger cooler, generally a 240mm+ AIO or high-end air cooler, to keep this chip running at its rated boost clocks under sustained load rather than throttling during long gaming sessions with background tasks running.
On Priya Raghunathan’s testbench, 16-core X3D chips with a single cache-equipped CCD show gaming performance within margin of error of the 8-core X3D chips in most titles, confirming that the extra cores are a multitasking investment rather than a pure-gaming upgrade.
- Pros
- 16 cores at $599.00, a substantial saving over the Dual Edition for similar gaming fps
- Strong multitasking headroom for gaming plus streaming or background encoding
- AM5 platform longevity like every chip in this generation
- Cons
- Gaming-only fps is close to the cheaper 9800X3D bundles, so you’re paying for cores games don’t fully use
- Higher power draw than 8-core chips requires a more capable cooler
- Not bundled with a motherboard, so you’ll need to separately verify board compatibility
Who it’s for: buyers who want flagship core count without the Dual Edition’s cross-CCD premium.
AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D 12-Core
A middle-ground option at $549.99, splitting the difference between the 8-core X3D chips and the 16-core 9950X3D in both price and core count. For gaming, 12 cores is comfortably more than any current title needs, so expect performance very close to the 8-core X3D chips in pure fps terms, with the extra 4 cores providing modest additional multitasking headroom over the 9800X3D.
Estimated 1080p gaming performance should land within a few percent of the top of this chart in most titles, since the underlying architecture and cache configuration driving gaming fps is shared across the X3D lineup; core count above what a game actually uses doesn’t add fps, it adds background-task capacity.
This chip makes the most sense for buyers who know they’ll run some background load alongside gaming, Discord, a browser, light streaming, but don’t need the full 16-core ceiling of the 9950X3D. At $50 less than the standard 9950X3D, the value case for stepping up to 16 cores versus settling at 12 depends entirely on how much background multitasking you actually do.
Priya Raghunathan’s bench notes that the gap between 8, 12 and 16-core X3D chips in gaming-only workloads is consistently small, generally under 5%, reinforcing that core count beyond 8 is a multitasking decision, not a gaming fps decision, on this current chip generation.
- Pros
- 12 cores provide multitasking headroom above the 8-core chips at a moderate price step
- Gaming fps very close to the top of the X3D lineup
- AM5 socket compatibility for future platform longevity
- Cons
- Only $50 cheaper than the 16-core 9950X3D, a thin gap for half the extra cores
- No meaningful gaming fps advantage over cheaper 8-core X3D options
- Sits in an awkward middle price tier between clearly-budget and clearly-flagship options
Who it’s for: buyers who want more than 8 cores for moderate multitasking without paying flagship 16-core pricing.
AMD Ryzen 5 7600X3D 6-Core
The budget entry point into AM5’s X3D lineup at $239.99, a 6-core chip that still carries 3D V-Cache, meaning it inherits the same cache-driven gaming fps advantage as its pricier siblings despite the lower core count. For pure gaming at 1080p, 6 cores with V-Cache typically outperforms non-cache 8-core chips in cache-sensitive titles, since frame rate leans more on cache hit rate than raw thread count in most current engines.
Estimated 1080p gaming performance should trail the 8-core X3D chips by a modest margin in the most demanding titles but stay well ahead of non-X3D chips at similar or higher core counts, based on how 3D V-Cache has consistently outperformed core-count-only advantages in cache-sensitive game benchmarks across the X3D lineup. Where this chip shows its limit is in background multitasking headroom: 6 cores leaves less margin for streaming or heavy encoding running alongside the game.
This is the chip to consider if your budget is tight but you still want the AM5 socket and its platform longevity rather than settling for an older-generation AM4 chip; you get the cache advantage now and a viable upgrade path later without a full platform rebuild.
Priya Raghunathan notes that 6-core X3D chips are the practical minimum core count she’d recommend pairing with a current mid-to-high-end GPU, since fewer cores start to introduce 1% low dips in the most CPU-demanding open-world titles even with V-Cache helping average fps.
- Pros
- 3D V-Cache brings flagship-tier cache-driven gaming fps to a budget core count
- $239.99 is the lowest entry price into AM5’s X3D lineup
- AM5 socket protects future upgrade flexibility versus buying into AM4 now
- Cons
- 6 cores leaves limited headroom for gaming plus streaming or heavy background tasks
- Modest fps gap versus 8-core X3D chips in the most demanding current titles
- Still requires a full AM5 motherboard and DDR5 purchase, a bigger platform cost than an AM4 upgrade
Who it’s for: budget AM5 builders who want cache-driven gaming performance without paying for cores they won’t use.
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X Octa-core
Stepping onto the older AM4 socket, this $185.99 chip offers 8 cores without 3D V-Cache, making it a solid but not cache-accelerated gaming option, best suited to buyers who already own an AM4 motherboard and want a CPU upgrade without a full platform rebuild. Estimated 1080p gaming performance trails the AM5 X3D chips meaningfully in cache-sensitive titles, but remains competitive in less cache-dependent, more GPU-bound scenarios, particularly at 1440p and 4K where the GPU becomes the limiting factor regardless of CPU.
The lack of V-Cache means this chip relies on raw clock speed and 8 traditional cores rather than cache-driven latency reduction, so 1% lows in cache-sensitive open-world or simulation titles will likely show a bigger gap versus the X3D chips above than average fps numbers suggest.
For someone with an existing AM4 board and DDR4 memory, this chip is a meaningfully cheaper upgrade path than jumping to AM5, since you avoid a new motherboard and RAM purchase entirely; the tradeoff is inheriting AM4’s more limited remaining upgrade runway compared to AM5’s longer-committed roadmap.
Priya Raghunathan’s testbench comparisons of non-cache AM4 chips against X3D parts consistently show the biggest gap in titles like strategy and simulation games that lean on cache hit rate; in more GPU-bound shooters at 1440p+, the gap narrows considerably.
- Pros
- Drops into existing AM4 motherboards, avoiding a full platform rebuild cost
- 8 cores at $185.99 is a strong core-count-per-dollar value
- Competitive performance in GPU-bound scenarios at 1440p and 4K
- Cons
- No 3D V-Cache means a real fps gap versus AM5 X3D chips in cache-sensitive titles
- AM4 socket has a shorter remaining upgrade runway than AM5
- Requires an existing AM4 board and DDR4 RAM to make financial sense over a fresh AM5 build
Who it’s for: existing AM4 owners who want a core-count upgrade without switching platforms.
AMD Ryzen 7 5700 8-Core
The lowest-priced 8-core chip on this list at $159.99, this AM4 part runs at a lower 65W TDP than the 5700X above and ships with AMD’s Wraith Stealth cooler included, removing a separate cooler purchase from the budget entirely. Estimated 1080p gaming performance sits close to the 5700X in most titles, with the lower TDP trading a small amount of boost clock headroom for lower power draw and quieter operation.
Like the 5700X, this chip lacks 3D V-Cache, so expect a real gap versus AM5’s X3D lineup in cache-sensitive titles, though it remains a functional choice for GPU-bound resolutions or esports titles that lean more on raw clock speed and less on cache behavior.
The included cooler is a genuine value-add for a true budget build, since a basic air cooler purchase would otherwise add $20-40 to the total platform cost; it’s not built for aggressive overclocking, but this chip’s factory clocks are already close to its practical ceiling anyway.
Priya Raghunathan flags this chip specifically as the value floor for a genuinely tight-budget AM4 build; below this price point, older Zen 1 and Zen+ chips start showing their age more sharply in current titles’ minimum CPU requirements.
- Pros
- Lowest price on this list for a full 8-core chip, at $159.99
- Bundled Wraith Stealth cooler removes a separate cooling purchase
- Lower 65W TDP means quieter, cooler operation than the 5700X
- Cons
- No 3D V-Cache, so a real fps gap versus current AM5 X3D chips in demanding titles
- Bundled cooler isn’t built for overclocking headroom
- AM4 socket’s remaining upgrade path is more limited than AM5’s
Who it’s for: tight-budget AM4 builders who want the most cores per dollar with a cooler already included.
How we tested and picked
Priya Raghunathan, GPU & CPU Analyst with 8 years of experience testing graphics and processor silicon, evaluated this lineup using an instrumented bench with a PCIe riser, clamp meter and per-rail power logging, focused on how cache architecture and core count actually translate to gaming frame times rather than headline specs alone. Her background as a hardware validation engineer testing silicon under sustained load informs the emphasis here on 1% lows and frame time consistency, not just average fps, since a chip that wins on paper but produces inconsistent frame pacing feels worse to play than the numbers suggest.
Chips were grouped by socket (AM5 versus AM4) and by cache configuration (X3D versus standard) so the tradeoffs between platform longevity, cache-driven fps, and core count could be compared on a like-for-like basis rather than mixing generations into one flat ranking. Bundle options were evaluated on the CPU’s own merits first, with motherboard chipset tier and feature set as a secondary consideration.
Performance figures cited throughout are explicitly labeled as estimates derived from each chip’s known architecture, cache configuration and clock targets relative to published benchmark patterns for that chip family, not from a direct benchmark run of every SKU on this list. Where a claim reflects bench-measured behavior, such as thread-scheduling variance on dual-CCD parts or motherboard impact on fps, that distinction is noted explicitly rather than presented as a hard number for every configuration.
What to look for in a gaming CPU
3D V-Cache and why it matters more at 1080p than 4K
3D V-Cache stacks extra L3 cache directly onto the CPU die, giving the processor a much larger pool of fast memory to pull frequently-accessed game data from before falling back to slower system RAM. Games are full of repeated lookups, physics calculations, AI pathing, draw call data, and a bigger cache means more of those lookups hit the fast on-die cache instead of waiting on a round trip to DDR5 memory, which directly reduces the stalls that show up as dips in frame rate or 1% lows.
This advantage is most visible at 1080p and, to a lesser extent, 1440p, because at those resolutions the CPU is more often the limiting factor; the GPU can render frames faster than the CPU can feed it game logic, so anything that speeds up the CPU side shows up directly as more fps. At 4K, the GPU becomes the bottleneck in most titles regardless of CPU, since rendering four times the pixels of 1080p takes proportionally more GPU work, and the CPU’s job of feeding game state becomes comparatively easier to keep up with.
Practically, this means 4K-focused gamers see diminishing returns from paying a premium for X3D chips over standard AM5 parts, while 1080p and competitive esports players, where every frame and every millisecond of 1% low consistency matters for reaction time, see the clearest benefit from cache-heavy chips like the ones topping this list.
Single-thread performance versus core count for real games
Game engines have gotten better at spreading work across multiple threads over the past decade, but most still rely heavily on a primary render thread that handles the bulk of game logic, physics and draw call submission. That means single-thread performance, clock speed combined with instructions-per-clock efficiency, remains the dominant factor in raw fps for the majority of current titles, more than total core count once you’re above roughly 6-8 cores.
Core count becomes the deciding factor once you look beyond the game itself: background capture software, Discord with video call overhead, a browser with a dozen tabs, and OS-level background tasks all compete for CPU time. A 6-core chip running a demanding game plus heavy background load can show worse 1% lows than an 8 or 12-core chip running the identical game and background load, purely because there’s less spare thread capacity to absorb the extra work without stealing cycles from the game’s primary thread.
The practical takeaway: don’t chase core count for gaming fps alone, but don’t go below 6-8 cores either if you run any meaningful background load, since that’s the point where thread starvation starts showing up as inconsistent frame pacing rather than a clean fps number.
AM5 socket and platform longevity
Buying into a CPU socket is really buying into a multi-year upgrade path, not just the chip in the box today. AMD’s AM5 socket, launched with the Ryzen 7000 series, is the company’s current platform and has already hosted multiple CPU generations including the 9000-series X3D chips on this list, following the precedent set by AM4, which supported CPU generations from Zen 1 through Zen 3 across roughly five years without requiring a new motherboard.
For a buyer choosing between an AM5 chip now and a cheaper AM4 chip, the AM5 premium is partly a bet on being able to drop in a future CPU generation without replacing the motherboard, while the AM4 chip is explicitly a shorter-term or budget-constrained choice, appropriate for someone who already owns the board or has a hard budget ceiling right now.
DDR5 memory requirements on AM5 also add to the platform cost versus AM4’s DDR4 support, a real consideration when budgeting a full build rather than just the CPU price, since DDR5 kits currently carry a price premium over equivalent-capacity DDR4 kits.
Mistakes buyers make
Buying the highest core-count chip assuming it means the highest fps. As covered above, gaming fps tracks much more closely with cache and single-thread performance than raw core count once you’re past 6-8 cores; a 16-core chip and an 8-core chip from the same X3D generation often post nearly identical gaming benchmarks.
Ignoring platform cost when comparing AM5 and AM4 prices. An AM4 chip’s lower sticker price doesn’t account for the DDR5 and motherboard cost difference if you’re building from scratch; the real comparison is total platform cost, not CPU price alone.
Assuming 3D V-Cache matters equally at every resolution. Buyers who are set on 4K gaming and choose an X3D chip specifically for the cache advantage may find the GPU is the actual bottleneck, meaning a cheaper non-X3D chip would have delivered nearly identical real-world fps.
Underestimating cooling needs on higher-core-count chips. The 12 and 16-core X3D parts draw meaningfully more power under sustained multi-core load than the 6 and 8-core chips, and pairing them with a budget air cooler can lead to thermal throttling during long sessions with background tasks running.
Overlooking motherboard chipset tier when buying a bundle. Not every X870 or B650 board offers the same VRM quality, M.2 slot count, or connectivity; a bundle’s convenience shouldn’t skip checking whether the included board actually matches your needs.
Skipping BIOS update checks on older AM4 boards. Some existing AM4 motherboards need a BIOS update to support newer chips like the 5700 and 5700X; buying the CPU without confirming your specific board’s BIOS compatibility list can leave you with a chip that won’t boot until you update firmware, sometimes requiring an older compatible CPU just to flash the update.
Verdict
For most gaming-focused builds, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D bundles, either the ASUS TUF X870-PLUS WiFi at $674.98 or the Micro Center MSI X870E bundle at $729.99, deliver the strongest pure gaming fps per dollar thanks to single-CCD V-Cache without cross-die complexity. Budget builders should look at the Ryzen 5 7600X3D at $239.99 for AM5 cache performance on a tight budget, or the Ryzen 7 5700 at $159.99 if you already own an AM4 board. Buyers who need serious multitasking headroom alongside top-tier gaming should step up to the Ryzen 9 9950X3D at $599.00, which avoids the Dual Edition’s cross-CCD premium while still offering 16 cores.
Frequently asked questions
Does 3D V-Cache actually matter for gaming?
Yes, especially at 1080p and 1440p where the GPU isn’t the bottleneck; the extra L3 cache reduces trips to system memory for game logic and AI calculations, often adding 10-20% average fps in cache-sensitive titles like simulation and strategy games, though the gain shrinks at 4K where the GPU becomes the limiting factor.
Do I need an 8-core or 16-core CPU for gaming alone?
Most current games use 6-8 cores effectively even with background tasks running, so a 6 or 8-core X3D chip games just as well as a 16-core part in the vast majority of titles; the extra cores on 12 and 16-core CPUs matter more for streaming, video encoding or heavy multitasking than for gaming fps itself.
Is single-thread performance or core count more important for fps?
Single-thread performance and cache behavior drive frame rate and 1% lows in most games, since game engines still rely heavily on a primary render thread; core count matters more once you’re running background capture software, Discord, and a browser alongside the game.
How long will the AM5 socket be supported?
AMD has committed to supporting AM5 through multiple CPU generations, similar to how AM4 spanned Zen 1 through Zen 3, which means a current AM5 motherboard purchase should accept at least one or two future CPU generations without a full platform rebuild.
Is it worth buying a CPU bundled with a motherboard?
Bundled CPU and motherboard combos can save on shipping and guarantee compatibility without researching chipset support separately, and are worth it if the bundled board’s feature set (VRM quality, M.2 slot count) matches what you’d have bought anyway. If you’re building around a 1440p GPU, pair one of these chips with our CPU and GPU combo guide, and if your budget is tighter, see our best budget CPU for gaming picks or the best AMD CPU for gaming roundup for more options within this same platform family.
