Six processors you should not buy and twelve alternatives you should buy

Over the last six months the general consumer processor market has undergone a small revolution due to two major keys. The first has been the launch of the AMD Ryzen 7000 and the Intel Raptor Lake-S, and the second is the growing competition between Intel and AMD, which has led to a marked price war that in the end has benefited consumers.

The idea is very simple, when Intel and AMD have processors that are at similar levels of performance both great have to be aggressively adjusting prices. to make them more attractive, and this is precisely what benefits us as consumers, because thanks to this we have the possibility of accessing better processors at lower prices.

We have already seen that when there is no such competition, or when one of the two is way ahead of the other with its products, the latter tends to inflate its pricesand in the end we, the consumers, are the ones who suffer. That is why it is so important that both Intel and AMD are up to the task and that they launch products that are truly competitive, otherwise we will find ourselves with periods of marked dominance of one or the other in which prices rise disproportionately.

Currently the situation is very good, we can find processors from both brands with excellent performance at very affordable prices, but. this does not mean that they all offer the same value.In fact, there are models that we should avoid at all costs because they are a terrible investment, and that is what we are going to talk about in this new guide, where we will look at six processors that are a bad buy and twelve alternatives that are a good choice. This guide is a necessary update of the one we shared with you last year.

Six processors you shouldn’t buy

Intel Celeron G5925

processors you should not buy

A processor that falls into the Comet Lake-S (Core Gen10) generation. This means that it is three generations behind of the most modern chips that Intel has on the market today, and since it is a Celeron it is a low-end which is only intended for basic use.


  • Comet Lake-S generation.
  • Two cores and two threads at 3.6 GHz.
  • Manufactured at the 14 nm++ node.
  • Socket LGA1200.
  • 4 MB of L3 cache.
  • 58 watts TDP.
  • Price: €78.50.

Why shouldn’t you buy it?

Because it is a processor that not only has been widely surpassed, but also has a price too high for what we can currently find in the market. All this makes them have a terrible value in price-performance ratio.and should be avoided at all costs.

Broadly speaking their CPI is good, this is true, so. offers a more than acceptable performance as long as we don’t ask it to move applications or games that parallelize on more than two threads, but its selling price becomes its biggest enemy.

Even if you’re just looking for a basic processor for office and multimedia browsing. you should pass it by and look for other alternatives that offer much better value for the almost 80 euros that the Intel Celeron G5925 costs.

Alternatives that are a good choice

If you want to stay on the side of Intel Core i3-10105F is the best alternative, as it also falls into the Comet Lake-S series but has 4 cores and 8 threads at a higher frequency, and is priced at only 72.82 euros. On the AMD side, the most recommended alternative option would be the Ryzen 5 4500which has 6 cores and 12 threads and costs 79.98 euros.

AMD Ryzen 3 4100

processors you should not buy

This processor uses the Zen 2but comes trimmed to only 8 MB of L3 cache because it uses an APU-like design with GPU disabled. It is in the lower end of the range, but is a step above the previous Celeron thanks to its 4-core, 8-thread configuration, which gives it greater versatility.


  • Zen 2 generation.
  • Four cores and eight threads at 3.8 GHz-4 GHz.
  • Manufactured at the 7 nm node.
  • Socket AM4.
  • 8 MB of L3 cache.
  • 65 watts TDP.
  • Price: €79.97.

Why shouldn’t you buy it?

This processor has a much lower IPC than a Zen 2 chip with the classic chiplet design. The trimming of its L3 cache, which is only 8 MB (a Ryzen 3 3300X has the same number of cores and threads and adds 16 MB of L3), and its low operating frequencies make its performance lower than that of a Core i3-10105F.yet it is more expensive than the Core i3-10105F. It is also stepped on in price with the Ryzen 5 4500, which has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Its price-performance value is not good compared to other processors that we can find in the market, and directly it is not worth investing the almost 80 euros it costs when with that money we can access more powerful solutions in both multithreading and single-threading, this is the main reason, although it is true that it is a less bad option than the Celeron with which we have opened this guide.

In terms of raw performance, this processor Is closer to a Ryzen 3 2300X than a Ryzen 3 3100, and the latter is also less powerful than an Intel Core i3-10105F, so I think the picture is pretty clear. If AMD had tuned its price to a lower level, such as between 50 and 60 euros, yes we could consider it as an interesting option.

Alternatives that are a good option

As in the previous case the best alternatives within the same price range would be the Intel Core i3-10105F and the Ryzen 5 4500. If we can invest a bit more, the ideal would be to go for a Ryzen 5 5500, which has a higher IPC than the Ryzen 5 4500 and maintains the 6 cores and 12 threads and costs 108.90 euros. In the case of Intel if we can spend a little more the best option would be the Core i5-10400Fwhich has 6 cores and 12 threads, offers a good IPC and costs 112.09 euros.

Intel Core i3-10320

processors you should not buy

A processor that positions a little above the Intel Core i3-10105F. It also belongs to the Comet Lake-S series, and the only differences it presents compared to that chip are found in its operating frequencies, which are slightly higher, and in that its iGPU (integrated GPU) comes enabled, so we can use it without a dedicated graphics card.


  • Comet Lake-S Generation.
  • Two cores and four threads at 3.8-4.6 GHz.
  • Fabricated on the 14 nm++ node.
  • Socket LGA1200.
  • 8 MB L3 cache.
  • 65 watts TDP.
  • Price: €139.35.

Why shouldn’t you buy it?

I’m sure as soon as you saw the price you realized why it’s not a good buy. This processor has a totally disproportionate cost not only for the level of performance it offers, but also for what we can find on the market today.

The difference it makes vs. the Intel Core i3-10105F in terms of performance. is minimal, and while it is true that it plays with the advantage of having its iGPU enabled this. does not justify at all that difference of almost 67 euros. between the two.

If you buy this processor you will be paying almost twice as much of what a Core i3-10105F would cost you and the performance improvement you will enjoy will be almost negligible at CPU level. If you are worried about the GPU issue, don’t worry, with the 67 euros you save already you would have almost everything you need to buy a dedicated graphics card. inexpensive and much more powerful, such as the GeForce GT 1030.

Alternatives that are a good choice

In this case we repeat the Intel Core i3-10105F and Ryzen 5 4500 if you want to stay below 80 euros. If you are between 130 and 150 euros, the best alternatives to the Core i3-10320 are the Intel Core i5-11400F, which has a very good IPC, has 6 cores and 12 threads and costs 130.99 euros, and the Ryzen 5 5600, which has a higher IPC than the previous one, has 6 cores and 12 threads and costs €144.86. In this case, it would be best to opt for the Ryzen 5 5600.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D has become one of those processors that deserve to go down in history, and that is because it was the first to use 3D stacked L3 cache, a novelty that allowed it to significantly improve performance in games that rely on that type of cache. It uses the Zen 3 architecture and maintains the 8-core, 16-thread configuration of the Ryzen 7 5800X, although it operates at lower frequencies.


  • Zen Generation 3.
  • 8 cores and 16 threads at 3.4 GHz-4.5 GHz.
  • Fabricated at the 7 nm node.
  • Socket AM4.
  • 96 MB of L3 cache.
  • 105 watts TDP.
  • Price: €359.89.

Why shouldn’t you buy it?

The Ryzen 7 5800X3D is still a very powerful processor, this does not admit any discussion, but. its price is too high for what we can find today in the market both by AMD itself and by Intel, which have managed to beat it with the Ryzen 7000 and the Intel Core Gen12 and Gen13.

A Ryzen 5 7600X manages to outperform it in gaming. and not only is much cheaperbut also offers more consistent performance and is integrated into a more advanced platform with longer life. Other much cheaper processors, such as the Intel Core i5-13400F, offer nearly identical average gaming performance, and far outperform it in multithreading.

As if all of the above were not enough, it should be noted that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. is fully specialized for gamingand that because of this underperforms the Ryzen 7 5800X in synthetic tests and in professional applications.where the L3 cache has a much lower relevance. Considering its huge price tag, it is clear why we say it is not a good buy.

Alternatives that are a good choice

Precisely the Ryzen 5 7600X would be an excellent choice, as it is a very powerful chip and can be purchased for only €251.13. It has a higher IPC than the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and performs better in games. In some professional applications it lags behind because it has 6 cores and 12 threads, but the difference is smaller than you would expect thanks to the higher IPC of the former and its higher working frequencies, and in others it even manages to surpass it. Considering that it costs 100 euros less it is obvious why it is a better choice and why it is so worthwhile.

Another interesting alternative would be the Intel Core i5-13600KFwhich has 6 high-performance cores, 8 high-efficiency cores and 20 threads. Its IPC is superior, it performs better in games and also in synthetic and professional applications. On top of outperforming it on all fronts it is it costs 325.99 euros.

Intel Core i9-11900K

It was Intel’s most powerful processor in its generation. It falls into the Rocket Lake-S (Core Gen11) family, which was the last to use the 14 nm node. with a new tock that Intel called “Cypress Cove”, an architecture that was an adaptation of Ice Lake’s Sunny Cove cores, manufactured on 10 nm+ node, to the 14 nm+++ process. As of today it would fit within what we can consider as a mid-range processor.


  • Rocket Lake-S Generation.
  • Eight cores and sixteen threads at 3.5-5.1 GHz.
  • Fabricated on the 14 nm+++ node.
  • Socket LGA1200.
  • 16 MB of L3 cache.
  • 125 watts TDP.
  • Price: €371.99

Why shouldn’t you buy it?

Although it is still capable of delivering good performance, thanks to its high IPC, high working frequencies and 8-core, 16-thread configuration, its price is too high for what it offersIt also has very high power consumption and operating temperatures compared to other current processors.

It has been clearly outperformed by processors that are not only much cheaper than this one, but are also more efficient and cooler, and are integrated into superior platforms. Even despite the price drop it has experienced in the last 10 months, is still a bad buyand this is not going to change unless it is reduced much further.

Today there are a multitude of mid-range processors that. reach the same performance while costing almost half the price.consuming much less and generating much less heat. This simple explanation allows us to understand almost instantly why this is one of the processors that we should consider as a bad buy.

Alternatives that are a good choice

The Ryzen 7 5700X is the best option if we are looking for a direct equivalence in terms of performance, as it has 8 cores and 16 threads and performs practically the same as the Core i9-11900K, but costs only €209.90. It is also much more efficient and cooler, as it consumes 80 watts less at full load and its temperature values hover between 55 and 70 degrees, depending on the cooling solution we use and the workload.

If we want an equivalent for almost the same price the best alternative would be the. Ryzen 7 7700Xwhich has 8 cores and 16 threads and is much more powerful than the Core i9-11900K. It is priced at 379.89 euros. All in all, the Intel Core i5-13600 offers a more balanced price-performance value than the Ryzen 7 7700X.

Ryzen 9 3900X

A processor that by core and thread count. is still high-endalthough, being part of the Zen 2 generation, its IPC is no longer up to the level of the latest models, and this is noticeable in applications that are more dependent on single-threaded performance, such as games for example. Nevertheless, it is still very powerful.


  • Zen Generation 3.
  • 12 cores and 24 threads at 3.8 GHz-4.6 GHz.
  • Fabricated at the 7 nm node.
  • Socket AM4.
  • 64 MB of L3 cache.
  • TDP of 105 watts.
  • Price: €419.

Why shouldn’t you buy it?

It is true that thanks to its 12-core, 24-thread configuration, it is capable of delivering excellent performance in synthetic and professional applications, but its IPC was already far behind the Ryzen 5000, and the difference is even greater against the Ryzen 7000, which means that in the end even processors with fewer cores and threads offer higher performance even in multithreading.

As an example we can cite the Ryzen 7 7700X, which despite having only 8 cores and 16 threads. manages to outperform the Ryzen 9 3900X in Cinebench R23.and offers much better single-threaded performance. Also note that it is integrated into a more current platform and is less expensive.

If our goal is to buy a powerful processor for working there are many alternatives that not only perform better than the Ryzen 9 3900X, but are also cheaper. This is the main reason why it is not a good buy, even if it is on sale for less than €420.

Alternatives that are a good choice

The Ryzen 9 5900X, which can be purchased for €358.86, is an excellent alternative, as it also has 12 cores and 24 threads, its IPC is higher and it works at higher frequencies, which means it performs quite a bit better than the Ryzen 9 3900X and costs less money. On the Intel side, the best alternative would be the Intel Core i7-13700which has a much higher IPC than the Ryzen 9 3900X, adds 8 high-performance cores, 8 high-efficiency cores and handles 24 threads. It is priced at 408.26 euros.

Note: This guide contains some links from our affiliates, but none of the products included have been proposed or recommended by them or their manufacturers, but chosen at our own discretion.

Click to rate this entry!
(Votes: 0 Average: 0)
Leave a Comment