There was a time when budget CPUs felt truly special. Getting most of the performance of a high-end CPU at a fraction of the price allowed countless PC builders to get started on their PC journey. Today, however, "budget" CPUs remain so only in name. The value has been eroding every year, innovative features are only found on high-end chips, and even APUs don't offer the value they used to anymore — it increasingly feels like the budget segment is scheduled for deletion pretty soon.

Budget CPUs need a price correction

It doesn't feel budget anymore

The budget CPU segment gradually switched from the 4-core CPUs of yore to modern 6-core CPUs. This was accompanied by a justified price bump, but over time, 6-core CPUs have crept up in price. The latest entrants, i.e., the Ryzen 5 9600X, launched at an MSRP of $279 last year. Although it sold for around $200 for the bulk of its time on the market, does that really feel "budget"? Sure, you can buy last-gen 6-core chips like the Ryzen 5 7600X or Ryzen 5 7600 for less than $200, but that's a compromise. Why are companies pricing so-called budget CPUs over $200 in the first place?

The definition of the budget CPU segment has shifted, and consumers can't do anything about it. The days of worthwhile $150 or $120 CPUs are long gone, and will most likely never return. PC builders are rushing to build 6-core Intel and AMD systems because they don't have alternatives. They are stuck between entry-level CPUs that are too weak, and these "budget" CPUs that pack more performance than they need. Well, cheap CPUs have problems of their own.

The entry-level segment has no competition

Intel's the only option

If you wish to buy a relatively new entry-level CPU, you'll only find Intel options on the market. You'll probably pick the Core i3 14100 or its F variant for around $100–$120. These chips are fine for PCs where performance isn't a priority, but due to the lack of any competition from AMD, the segment has become stale. There are no sub-$150 CPUs packing 6 cores with slightly reduced clock speeds and cache to compete with Intel's 4-core Raptor Lake SKUs. The entry-level segment has been abandoned, even by Intel, as evidenced by the Arrow Lake lineup.

Not everyone is building a gaming PC or professional workstation; the demand for decent, cheap CPUs is still there. If only this segment were more lively, consumers would happily forego a Ryzen 5, Core i5, or Core Ultra 5 in favor of a cheaper SKU if it met their needs. Whether this will happen in the future is highly unlikely, seeing that neither Intel nor AMD has produced any entry-level chip this generation.

APUs are not "value" chips anymore

For those who think AMD's APUs are the saviors of the budget CPU segment, think again. APUs used to be worthwhile a few years ago when the performance justified the price. Instead of buying a CPU and a discrete GPU, you could realistically build a half-decent 1080p gaming PC with a single APU. Today, however, both the prices of AMD's APUs and the standards of modern 1080p gaming have climbed to a whole new level. The performance that the Ryzen 5 8600G or Ryzen 7 8700G promises to a budget buyer isn't that attractive anymore.

Both of these are Zen 4 chips that were passable for 1080p gaming in 2024. Over a year after launch, the value proposition has dipped further. They're priced at around $200 and $270, respectively, which might appear a great deal on the surface. After all, you're saving the cost of a discrete GPU. If you consider the onboard GPU capabilities, however, you'll soon realize that even the ancient RX 580 (which retails for about $100) can handily beat the Ryzen 5 8700G in GPU performance. You can make a solid case for skipping the stunted CPU and weak GPU on AMD's most powerful APU in favor of a more powerful build with a $200 Zen 5 CPU and a $100 discrete graphics card.

Game-changing features are reserved for high-end SKUs

Where's my $200 Ryzen X3D CPU?

Another thing I'm miffed about is the lack of truly innovative features on budget CPUs. For instance, AMD's 3D V-Cache is mostly reserved for its high-end chips priced at $450 or higher. Even when the company offered the Ryzen 5 5600X3D or the Ryzen 5 7600X3D, the former was a delayed launch, and the latter was priced too high to be called a budget CPU anymore. The rumored Ryzen 5 9600X3D might appear soon, but there's little chance that AMD will price it lower than $300 (at least).

I understand that CPU manufacturers need to keep segmentation in mind just like anyone else, but the pricing of these budget X3D CPUs doesn't make sense even then. At this point, the budget CPU segment needs a revival, whether that comes in the form of price cuts or feature additions (without absurd price hikes). New and game-changing technologies ought to trickle down to the lowest-tier products after multiple generations.

The budget CPU died a silent death

It feels like CPU manufacturers sneakily killed the budget CPU without most people noticing anything. Today, we don't have sub-$200 CPUs worth getting excited about. Most of the best features are reserved for high-end chips, and even APUs don't offer the value they once did. The budget CPU segment has disappeared in all but name.