Both chips are compatible with LGA 1700 socket motherboards, including 600- and 700-series chipsets, though you may need a BIOS update to use the former. Both chips also support DDR4 and DDR5 memory given you have a compatible motherboard. DDR4 and DDR5 are physically incompatible, so make sure you have the proper motherboard version before picking out your memory.
Like AMD, Intel offers a bundled cooler with both chips: the Laminar RM1. Given the low power demands and locked multiplier, the RM1 is enough to keep both chips within operating temperatures. However, Intel’s 12th- through 14th-gen chips tend to run hot, so investing in an inexpensive tower cooler ($20 – $30) is worth it. Unlike the Ryzen 5 5500, both Intel chips support PCIe 4.0 for storage and graphics.
We’re looking at the F-series variants of the Core i3-12100 and Core i3-14100 without integrated graphics, which are the versions you’ll still find available for around $100. The pricier versions with integrated graphics perform identically, though they’re way too expensive to recommend right now with resellers asking north of $220 for them.
When we review CPUs at Tom’s Hardware, we use the most performant gaming GPU available to consumers in order to isolate CPU performance as much as possible — that’s currently the Nvidia RTX 5090 FE. This approach has a flaw when we’re looking at CPUs as weak as the Ryzen 5 5500, Core i3-1200F, and Core i3-14100F, however. We are forcing the system into a full CPU bottleneck and ignoring the influence of the GPU in a budget system running one of these chips, which is an influence that we need to account for in this situation.
Performance with the RTX 5090 FE is important, as we’ve isolated CPU performance as much as possible to get an accurate view of how these chips compare to one another. However, we also ran a test pass with an Asus Dual RTX 4060 8GB as a more grounded, “real-world” comparison point. The choice to use the RTX 4060 was deliberate, as it only has 8GB of VRAM, and some of the games in our test suite have performance issues with 8GB graphics cards. If you’re buying one of these CPUs, there’s a good chance you’re pairing it with a GPU that has 8GB (or less) of VRAM, so we wanted to reflect that situation in our testing.
You can see both configurations represented in our chart above, with a natural split between the RTX 5090 and RTX 4060. We’re testing with DDR4 here to keep the playing field level, as well as focus on the budget builders that don’t want to shell out for a DDR5 kit. Based on our testing, adding DDR5 into the mix with the Core i3-12100F or Core i3-14100F represents around a 5% to 8% improvement, depending on the title.
Performance falls in-line with price, with the Ryzen 5 5500 at the bottom and the Core i3-14100F at the top. With the RTX 5090, the Core i3-14100F was a minor 3.8% faster than the Core i3-12100F, but 11.8% faster than the Ryzen 5 5500. With the RTX 4060, the difference between the two Intel CPUs is less than two frames (about 2%), while the Core i5-14100F is 10.7% ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500. The scaling is slightly less dramatic with the RTX 4060, but it’s still very much present.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) In our other geomeans, you can see the Core i3-14100F consumed the most power out of our test pool, averaging 55.1W across our suite of games. This chart is interesting because it shows the influence of the GPU, and how the CPU becomes the bottleneck as it tries to keep pace with a much faster GPU.
The Core i3-14100F was the least efficient of our test pool, while the Core i3-12100F was the most. But really, we’re dealing at the extreme low end here. All of these CPUs are exceptionally efficient in games, so much so that we had to reset the X-axis on our efficiency chart to fit the data in. As we’ll get to later, none of these chips come close to 100W, even under a full workload. And in games, less than 50W is the norm.
Despite drawing the most power, the Core i3-14100F sits in the middle of our temperature rankings. Although these are great thermal results, we test with a 360mm all-in-one liquid cooler. If you plan on using the stock cooler included with any of these CPUs, expect much higher temperatures under load.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) At 1080p, Baldur’s Gate 3 is completely CPU-bound with this test pool, as we can see virtually identical performance across both the RTX 4060 and RTX 5090 passes. The Core i3-14100F is a clear favorite here, outpacing the Ryzen 5 5500 by just over 10% overall, and coming in a few frames ahead of the Core i3-12100F.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Borderlands 4 is one of the reasons we opted to test the RTX 4060, as this game struggles with 8GB GPUs. With the RTX 5090, we see the Core i3-14100F only 3% ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500 and 6% ahead of the Core i3-12100F. However, the Intel chips handled the 8GB RTX 4060 more gracefully, with the Core i3-14100F outperforming the Ryzen 5 5500 by 21.9%.
Regardless of your CPU choice, playing this game with an 8GB graphics card is a bad experience with consistent stuttering, as shown by the 1% lows.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Crimson Desert is another game where it helps to have data from the RTX 4060. With the RTX 5090, the Core i3-14100F outpaces the Ryzen 5 5500 by 13.5%, but that lead shrinks to just 4% with the RTX 4060 as the GPU becomes a bigger influence on performance.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) We see the opposite behavior in Counter-Strike 2, with the CPUs offering identical performance with the RTX 5090, but the Core i3-14100F coming out 6.8% ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500 with the RTX 4060, likely on the back of its boosted clocks. Despite similar overall performance, the Intel CPUs show better stability in 1% lows.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) In Cyberpunk 2077, there’s a wall that the Core i3-14100F runs into around 68 FPS, but we see scaling with the different GPUs with the Core i3-12100F and Ryzen 5 5500. Regardless, the Core i3-14100F clearly leads here.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Doom: The Dark Ages is mostly GPU-bound with its always-on ray tracing, and that’s clear immediately in our chart. Still, the Core i3-14100F beat the Core i3-12100F by 3.2% and the Ryzen 5 5500 by 4.5% with the RTX 5090. With the RTX 4060, the two Intel chips are in lockstep, beating out the Ryzen 5 5500 by around 4%.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) We can see our test pool is once again bound by the GPU with the RTX 4060 in F1 2024, with the Core i3-14100F marginally outclassing the two other chips by around 2%. Shifting the load back to the CPU with the RTX 5090, the Core i3-14100F is a massive 17% ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500, as well as 5% ahead of the Core i3-12100F.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Final Fantasy XIV Benchmarks Image 1 of 5 (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Flight Simulator 2024 Benchmarks Image 1 of 5 (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Flight Simulator 2024 is one of the more interesting benchmarks for this test pool. With the RTX 4060, you can see we’re completely GPU-bound. However, with the RTX 5090, the Core i3-14100F and Core i3-12100F post identical results, which are more than 20% ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Hitman 3 shows strange results at first glance, but that’s mainly a consequence of including two GPUs in the same chart. What we’re really seeing here is that the Core i3-12100F and Core i3-14100F offer identical performance in this title, which is marginally ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500 with the RTX 5090 and about 13% ahead with the RTX 4060.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) We run into the exact same situation with Marvel Rivals, though the data is a bit cleaner. The two Intel CPUs are about 8.5% ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500 with the RTX 5090, and just shy of 4% ahead with the RTX 4060. This is an Unreal Engine 5 game, and UE5 is generally GPU-bound, but we still see a bit of scaling here.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Again, the two Intel CPUs are in lockstep here, posting identical performance with the RTX 4060. With the RTX 5090, the Core i3-14100F shows a minor 2.1% jump over the Core i3-12100F. The Ryzen 5 5500 really struggles in this game. Intel is around 20% ahead with the RTX 5090, and about 25% ahead with the RTX 4060.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) We run into a GPU-bound situation with the RTX 4060 in Starfield, and all three chips posted similar performance with the RTX 5090. Still, the Core i3-14100F technically leads here, beating out both other chips by around 7% with the RTX 5090.
The CPUs in our test pool are on the lowest-end of chips you can still find in stock at retailers, and because of that, they’re going to end up at the bottom of the charts below. That’s how these chips stack up to some more expensive options around $150 to $200, but again, our focus here is to look at your options if you only have $100 to spend. So, although we’ll show the context of other CPUs in our charts, we’re mainly focusing on the comparison between the three chips in our test pool.
As with games, we stuck with 32GB of DDR4 memory running at 3,200 MT/s for the three chips we’re looking at. In our charts, we’ve also included the Core i3-13100F running with DDR5-4800 memory as a comparison point for what you can expect out of the Core i3-12100F and Core i3-14100F if you opt for a DDR5 motherboard. However, we’re focused mainly on the DDR4 performance here given how largely that influences the total cost of a budget build.
Starting with multithreaded performance, The Ryzen 5 5500 unsurprisingly tops the charts with a 50% increase in core/thread count compared to the two Core i3s. Those extra two cores drive a 13.7% improvement over the Core i3-14100F and an 18.2% jump over the Core i3-12100F.
Looking at Intel, the Core i3-14100F has a minor 3.9% improvement over the Core i3-12100F, matching the Core i3-13100F running with DDR5 memory. All three of these CPUs use the same silicon, just binned differently, and that really shows up in our multithreaded geomean. Unlike games, where DDR5 memory can represent a decent jump in performance, you shouldn’t expect more than a 5% improvement in heavily-threaded workloads.
The script flips in single-threaded performance, with the Ryzen 5 5500 sliding into last place with its limited 4.2 GHz boost clock. The Core i3-12100F is 11.9% faster, while the Core i3-14100F is 22.1% faster. Comparing the two Intel CPUs, the Core i3-14100F is 9% ahead of the Core i3-12100F.
Single-threaded performance levels the playing field in our test pool a bit, with the Core i3-14100F actually coming out ahead of the Ryzen 5 7600X. However, the two Intel CPUs have locked multipliers, so you can’t squeeze out extra single-threaded performance by overclocking. The Ryzen 5 5500, on the other hand, has an unlocked multiplier and supports Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO). Manually tuning the Ryzen 5 5500 won’t change the performance story here broadly, but it could help close the gap in single-threaded workloads.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Starting with rendering tasks, the Core i3-12100F and Core i3-14100F broadly take a backseat to the Ryzen 5 5500 in multithreaded workloads, with the two Intel chips sitting close to each other in the rankings. Despite how close they are, the Core i3-14100F offers some meaningful improvements, such as an 8.1% jump in Blender Monster. Otherwise, the Ryzen 5 5500 wins in multithreaded rendering tests, short of V-Ray 6, where it matched the Core i3-14100F.
The Ryzen 5 5500 falls into last place when looking at single-threaded rendering via Cinebench and POV-Ray. The Core i3-12100F is 33% faster in POV-Ray, while the Core i3-14100F is 45.7% faster. Again, this feels like a flashback to generations past, with Intel excelling in single-threaded performance with a quad-core chip, while AMD makes up lost ground with weaker single-core performance but a large array of cores to work with.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) The performance picture with encoding workloads is almost identical to what we can see with rendering, mainly due to the fact that encoding workloads are either heavily-threaded or exclusively single-threaded. In video encoding via Handbrake, AMD leads by upwards of 17% depending on the codec. Outside of Handbrake, we can see the Ryzen 5 5500 leading by a margin of 13% in our HEVC encode, and by a margin of 25% in our AV1 encode.
Once again, single-threaded encoders show big leads for Intel. In a standard LAME run, the Core i3-14100F outpaces the Ryzen 5 5500 by 13.8%, which shrinks to a 12.8% lead when looking at an extended run. In a single-threaded JPEG-XL decode, the Core i3-12100F is 8% faster than the Ryzen 5 5500, while the Core i3-14100F is 18.8% faster.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) The Adobe suite features a broad range of workloads that helps drill down on which CPU from our test pool really stands out when considering tasks that aren’t exclusively single- or multithreaded. Starting in Photoshop, there’s a bit of an upset. AMD’s new CPUs usually excel in Photoshop, but we can see the Core i3-14100F taking a marginal lead over the Ryzen 5 5500 overall. Still, AMD managed to beat the Core i3-12100F by 4.6% in this test.
In video editing, the Ryzen 5 5500 claims the lead in Premiere Pro, outpacing the Core i3-14100F by 3.9%. The same is true in DaVinci Resolve, though the Ryzen 5 5500 holds a more commanding 8.1% lead. After Effects mirrors what we can see in Photoshop, with the Core i3-14100F marginally leading the pack.
Broadly, the two extra cores available to the Ryzen 5 5500 help out in video editing workloads. However, the margins aren’t as large here, with AMD usually leading by less than 10%, and in many cases, less than 5%. Although it’s interesting to inspect the difference between the chips in our test pool, context is important here. None of these CPUs are well-suited for creative workstations, so you’ll likely run into performance limitations regardless of which chip you use.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Web and office performance is important for our test pool. Although you should expect some bumpy performance with more demanding apps like the Adobe suite, basic web and office applications are firmly in the wheelhouse of budget CPUs. Most of our tests here are lightly-threaded, giving Intel a leg up with its superior clock speeds.
Starting with WebXPRT 4, the Ryzen 5 5500 and Core i3-12100F match each other at the bottom of the chart, while the Core i3-14100F claims a lead of 8.8%. In Tesseract OCR, both Intel chips come out ahead, with the Core i3-12100F completing the text-to-image scan 5% faster, and the Core i3-14100F completing it 23.7% faster.
There’s a big divergence in the Microsoft Office suite, as well, with both Intel chips coming out ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500. In Excel, the Core i3-12100F is 10% ahead of the Ryzen 5 5500, while the Core i3-14100F is 23% ahead. The story is similar in Powerpoint, with the Core i3-12100F beating the Ryzen 5 5500 by 12.5%, and the Core i3-14100F beating AMD by 20.5%.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) For this test pool, we’re putting a lot of emphasis on our main suite of encoding, rendering, creative, and general productivity benchmarks. However, we still ran these chips through our normal suite, which includes a broad range of workstation tasks, spanning everything from data science to web server workloads.
We’ve included the results in the album above if you’re interested in taking a look, but none of the chips we’re looking at today are well-suited for workstation applications.
All three chips in our test pool barely sip power. So much so that you can reasonably get by with the bundled cooler included with each CPU. Throughout our power testing, the highest result we recorded across the test pool was 78W, which the Core i3-14100F climbed to during an all-out render via Blender. Even with more power available to the platform, these chips play things safe.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) In some power tests, you can see the three chips we tested in lockstep. There’s no meaningful difference in power consumption between them in a multithreaded Y-Cruncher pass, nor a significant difference in Linpack. We can see more significant differences in Cinebench, Blender, and Handbrake, however.
In multithreaded Cinebench 2024, the Core i3-12100F consumed 16.6% more power than the Ryzen 5 5500, while the Core i3-14100F consumed 23.3% more power. In Blender, the Core i3-12100F is 24% ahead of AMD and the Core i3-14100F is 56% ahead. Even in these workloads, the Ryzen 5 5500 isn’t climbing over its rated 65W TDP, which is a good thing. Given that it’s unlocked for overclocking, you certainly have some power headroom to play with.
There’s a big divergence in demanding workloads between our three chips, but an even bigger split between Intel and AMD when looking at idle power consumption. In a true idle state, both Intel chips consumed nearly triple the power of the Ryzen 5 5500. And in an active idle situation (YouTube playback), Intel consumed more than double the power. In both cases, we’re looking at a difference of 10W, but that’s still significant considering just how little power the Ryzen 5 5500 requires.
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Turning to efficiency, the Ryzen 5 5500 comes out on top with its overall lower power draw, though the margins are tighter. We’re mainly looking at heavily-threaded workloads when talking about peak power consumption, so it’s no surprise to see the Ryzen 5 5500 dominate in efficiency. It offers better multithreaded performance due to packing six cores, and it requires less power than the Intel chips overall.
These CPUs are all around the same price, ranging from $80 to $100 depending on availability and sales. However, there’s a broader pricing conversation when looking at the overall platform. With Intel, you have the option between DDR4 and DDR5 along with an accompanying motherboard, while with AMD, you’re locked to DDR4 but with more plentiful motherboard options.
Starting with the motherboard, you can find an AM4 board for the Ryzen 5 5500 for as little as $60, though you should expect to spend around $80 to $100 on a decent board. AMD’s B550 chipset works here, as you’re able to overclock the Ryzen 5 5500 on that chipset. Technically, you can use 400-series and even some 300-series chipsets, though you should double-check compatibility and be prepared to flash a new BIOS using an older AM4 CPU. Despite the age of AM4, you can still find motherboards in stock at just about any retailer.
Intel is trickier. You can find Socket LGA 1700 motherboards for as little as $70, though most LGA 1700 boards only support DDR5 memory. Surprisingly enough, you’ll spend a premium on a DDR4 motherboard, likely due to low inventory. The cheapest board we could find is the Asus B760M-AYW Wi-Fi D4 for $90, though as the name suggests, it’s a Micro ATX board. For full ATX, you can pick up the MSI Pro B760-P Wi-Fi DDR4 for $140. If you want to jump to DDR5, you can do so for the same price with the MSI MAG B760 Tomahawk .
Both 600-series and 700-series chipsets work for both Intel chips, though you’ll need to flash a new BIOS if you plan on pairing the Core i3-14100F with a 600-series chipset.
One of the big reasons to go with one of these CPUs is DDR4 support given that DDR5 prices have shot through the room. A kit of Teamgroup T-Force Vulcan Z memory will run you about $130 for a 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) kit at 3200 MT/s. If you want something fancier, the Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 32 GB kit (2 x 16 GB) clocks in at $210 at the time of writing, also at 3200 MT/s.
If you spring for DDR5, expect to spend about double what you spend on DDR4. Currently, one of the cheaper DDR5 kits around is the Corsair Vengeance 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) kit at 6000 MT/s, which is around $450.
Using DDR4 as the baseline, the Ryzen 5 5500 ends up around $310 for the full platform, while the Core i3-14100F will run you about $370 ($10 less if you go for the Core i3-12100F). That’s about 19% more expensive going with one of Intel’s chips compared to the Ryzen 5 5500.
There’s some upgrade potential regardless of the platform you go with, though Intel certainly has a leg up with availability. Intel’s fastest gaming CPU is still the Core i9-14900K (the new Core Ultra 7 270K Plus is marginally slower), and it’s available for sale alongside most of the 14th-Gen lineup. You’ll need a Z-series chipset in order to overclock a K-series SKU, however, along with a much beefier cooler.
Despite the long-standing legacy of AM4, there aren’t a ton of Ryzen 5000 CPUs available for sale. Outside of the lower-end offerings like the Ryzen 5 5500, you’ll mainly find AMD’s XT refresh chips. Rumors suggest that AMD is planning on re-releasing the Ryzen 7 5800X3D , but that hasn’t been confirmed. In fact, you don’t have a reasonable way to unlock AMD’s coveted 3D V-Cache without spending top dollar on the secondhand market for an X3D AM4 chip.
Regardless of the platform, both AMD and Intel have moved onto newer sockets and chipsets, so you won’t have an opportunity to upgrade to a newer generation down the line. Intel has an edge if you’re moving within the existing product lineup, mainly due to the availability of Raptor Lake chips at retailers.
We used the same testing procedure for this $100 CPU shootout that we follow in our CPU reviews, including identical test benches short of the CPU and motherboard. We also make some tweaks to the BIOS and operating system to maximize performance while limiting sources of variation between different chips.
That includes turning off Virtualization-Based Security , enabling Resizable BAR, turning on XMP/EXPO (or DOCP in this case), and disabling any automatic boosting features. Intel doesn’t cover its Extreme power profile under warranty, nor does AMD cover Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), so we manually disable these features.
Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090 Founder’s Edition
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/100-budget-cpu-shootout-ddr4#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com/subscription
- Testing GPU Safeguard+ on the MSI MPG Ai1600TS PSU – solution aims to tame melting 16-pin connectors
- Chinese GPU maker sells out over 30,000 gaming GPUs within 48 hours despite lukewarm benchmarks — LX 7G100 proves hype trumps performance
- SK hynix unveils 'iHBM' thermal architecture that cools AI memory at the source — integrated cooling elements inside HBM interface cut thermal resistance by 30%
- After $2.5 billion Supermicro smuggling bust, Nvidia CEO urges company to fix export control compliance — Taiwan also begins to crack down on AI GPU chip smuggl
- Powering the Next American Century: US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and NVIDIA’s Ian Buck on the Genesis Mission
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.