Preparing for an upgrade: TOP 5 processors for entry-level gaming PCs

AMD was one of the first to realize that the semiconductor crisis would last for more than one month. And back in early 2020, they made a strange trick with their ears and released outdated first-generation Ryzen 3 chips, but made using a more modern 12-nm process technology. Thanks to this, the Ryzen 3 1600 was pumped up almost to the level of the Ryzen 2600, regained its former positions and again became the most interesting budget processor in AMD’s range. Looking at the success of the operation and pessimistic forecasts about deliveries, AMD decided to play a trick with their ears and resurrect the old AMD 1200.

This time the role model was the slightly more modest Ryzen 3 2200G. From now on, both processors are built using a 12-nm process technology, and the difference in frequency during auto-overclocking is 0.3 GHz. Because of this, in normal mode our test sample lags behind its Ryzen 3 2200G by an average of 10 - 15%, depending on the task. For example, in the Passmark test for overall performance, we received 6741 points versus 7325 points. With a little manual overclocking (fortunately the multiplier is unlocked here) of the Ryzen 1200, we quite easily brought the performance of both models to a common denominator. At the same time, the AMD Ryzen 3 1200 can be purchased for a modest $80 (and this is for the version with a cooler), while the Ryzen 3 2200G will cost almost twice as much.

Considering that the Ryzen 1200 is not friendly with multi-threading, it will be an excellent option for the most budget-conscious users who are not ready to invest in a powerful build right now, but plan to do so in the future. After all, AMD uses the same AM4 socket for all Ryzen chips, so if you upgrade to a more powerful processor, you won't necessarily have to change the motherboard as well. Well, right now, paired with an RTX 2060 SUPER-level video card, our hero is able to provide up to 60 FPS in such demanding projects as Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Cyberpunk 2077 and Far Cry 6. And this is at predominantly high graphics settings and Full HD resolution.

Over the past 2 years, the processor market has been turned upside down. If you haven’t been closely following what’s happening, then from now on AMD is responsible for technically sophisticated and powerful processors, and Intel is now in charge of the budget segment. And if we are talking about assembling an entry-level gaming computer, then one of the most interesting options for the role of a central processor will not be the newest Core i3-10100F. It offers a sufficient level of performance at the level of the Core i7-7700 and at the same time pleases with a pleasant price in the region of 85 - 100 dollars. Usually, for that kind of money, Intel, at best, handed out office “stumps” with a couple of low-power cores.

The main charm of the Core i3-10100F is that it is the first processor in this series that can work in multi-threaded mode and supports turbo boost. Previous generations of Core i3 were like peasant children, on whom they saved a lot in vain, so they had neither turbo boost nor additional virtual cores. In the 10th generation, this of course changed, thanks to which the Core i3-10100F actually turned into an analogue of the younger Core i5 models that came out in the 8th and 9th generations of Intel Core processors.

What are eight streams capable of today with a maximum frequency of 4.3 GHz? Let's say right away, a lot. In fact, this is the same Core i7-7700 with a slightly reduced cache (6 MB versus 8 MB), which two years ago was called the flagship stone and the optimal processor for games. Even with a simple motherboard and inexpensive RAM operating in dual-channel mode, this processor will be able to unleash the potential of a second-hand GeForce GTX 1080 Ti or a lucky GTX 3060. The only negative is that the Core i3-10100F has a locked multiplier, which means goodbye to normal overclocking. On the other hand, is there an urgent need for this?

For PCs based on AMD components, we still recommend the updated version of the Ryzen 5 1600, which AMD transferred to the 12nm process in the spring of 2020. Due to numerous improvements, the updated Ryzen 5 1600 has actually turned into a more status-conscious Ryzen 5 2600, but with slightly lower frequencies and a more attractive price tag. In order not to confuse old and new versions, AMD added the AF index to the name of the new product. Older Ryzen 5 1600 models with a 14nm process technology had the designation AE in the title. Fortunately, they have already disappeared from sale, so you won’t get confused.

Despite its venerable age, purely in terms of characteristics, the Ryzen 5 1600 still inspires respect: 6 physical cores + 6 virtual, auto-overclocking to 3.6 GHz, 16 MB of third-level cache and an unlocked multiplier. At the same time, the difference in frequencies between it and the Ryzen 5 2600 is easily leveled out by manual overclocking on a stock turntable. In this case, you get an almost complete analogue of the Ryzen 5 2600, which can still be bought for reasonable money. The big advantage of this build is the use of a single AM4 socket. Thanks to this, PC upgrades in the future can be carried out point-by-point without changing the motherboard, as is the case with the Intel platform. Let us remind you that the socket changes there every two years and you will not be able to install a 12th generation processor in a 10th generation motherboard.

The main disadvantage of this processor, like all Ryzen processors in 2021, is pricing and availability. At the end of the year, the number of offers decreased noticeably, and there are often options on sale with price tags that are inadequate for this category, ranging from $250 to $300. There is reason to believe that after the holidays the situation will calm down a little, prices will return to normal and the updated Ryzen 5 1600 with the AF index will again become relevant. If not, then we advise you to try your luck on the secondary market; there will probably be offers from people who at one time bought it at a normal price. Another disadvantage is the support for Windows 11. Microsoft has gone too far with the system requirements for the new operating system and the first generation of Ryzen chips are not in the list of supported processors at all. Windows OS users did not understand this decision (as well as the story with the TMP chip) and filled all the imageboards of the planet with rage, so Microsoft will either have to back down, or everyone will remain stuck on Win 10. However, that’s another story.

In recent years, Intel engineers have fallen seriously behind their AMD colleagues and, in the eyes of gamers, have turned from a technology leader into a manufacturer of excellent mid-range processors. For example, the Core i5-10400F, released in the spring of 2020, became one of the main hits of the Comet Lake line and, in general, almost the company’s most popular processor over the past few years. Moreover, in order to beat AMD, the guys from Intel played by its own rules, trying to deliver maximum performance for every dollar spent.

As a result, they got the ideological successor to the Ryzen 2600, which, at an official price of just under $200, boasts 6 physical and 6 virtual cores with auto-overclocking (2.9 GHz - 4.3 GHz) and an increased volume of third-level cache. Previously, such tricks remained the prerogative of Core i7 processors, and the “fives” were more likely limited to four cores. If we compare our hero with chips from the Ryzen camp, then the most suitable option would be the bestseller Ryzen 5 3600 Matisse, which, after rising in price, migrated to the mid-price segment.

In tests for archiving, compiling, rendering and audio processing, the Core i5-10400 lags behind its competitor by an average of 12 - 15%. Considering the competent implementation of SMT technology in the Zen 3 architecture, this is not surprising. In a game performance situation, our blue shorts fighter comes to life and essentially negates the previous round. In RDR2, Cyberpunk 2077 and Far Cry 6, it produces an average of 10% more FPS.

The only fly in the ointment was the too soft turbo boost. While the multi-core Core i7 monsters easily hit the coveted 5 GHz in manual mode, the performance of this Core i5 rises very carefully and slowly, and the processor itself is not particularly willing to maintain the stated frequencies on all cores simultaneously. Well, a locked multiplier limits overclocking options. AMD has long been accustomed to the fact that such things exist even in entry-level processors, while Intel seems to be trying to maintain a touch of elitism. But there is a stock cooler.

Scrolling through the tops of the best processors of 2021, you sometimes get the feeling that you have created a time machine and returned to 2017, when Marvel was still making good films, Donald Trump had just sensationally won the US presidential election, and AMD was preparing to take the crown from Intel. It was then, at the end of 2017, that the first rumors appeared about the revolutionary Ryzen 5 chips, which would overclock like hell and have performance at the Core i7 level. And now, more than 3 years later, we again recommend the Ryzen 5 2600E for an entry-level gaming PC.

Why did this happen? First of all, he was ahead of his time. Intel usually used the “6 physical cores + 6 virtual + good auto-overclocking” scheme in Core i7-level processors. For Core i5 chips that compete with Ryzen 5, this became the norm only in 2020. Secondly, even in the face of the coming 2022, the Ryzen 5 2600 stands with its head held high. The performance provided by 6 physical and 6 virtual cores with a boost of up to 3.9 GHz is more than enough for the average person who likes to play the Witcher, works with spreadsheets, or runs demanding highly specialized software for working with a variety of photo, audio and video content (t i.e. Adobe Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve or Ableton Live).

Of course, its performance is not as impressive as the results of its successors Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 5 5600X. Setting up RAM with the first generations of Ryzen was still a hassle. But the acceleration of older models was better. At the same time, older processors based on the Zen+ core now cost 60–70% more than chips based on the Zen 2 and Zen 3 topologies, which almost completely eliminates the difference in performance. In addition, no one bothers you to buy a more modern motherboard to pair with the processor, and after a couple of years upgrade the processor itself to a newer one.