The ULTIMATE Gaming CPU Tier List for 2025!

Overall goal & approach (2025 gaming CPU tier list)

• The channel ranks all currently available desktop CPUs for gaming in 2025, creating a “best vs worst” tier list across AMD and Intel.
• Rule of thumb: If you pick anything C-tier or above, you’re fine.
  • The creator argues most gaming performance is dominated by the GPU.
  • They estimate roughly 9/10 of the performance impact comes from the graphics card, with CPU affecting frame rate less often.
• Scope is limited to current sockets:
  • AMD: AM5 only (Ryzen 7000/8000/9000)
  • Intel: LGA1851 only (latest Core Ultra line)
• Older sockets are excluded as end-of-life (e.g., AM4, LGA1700), plus some rumored CPUs may be omitted if they’re not released yet.

Tooling / guide resources mentioned

• The creator repeatedly references CPUs.gg:
  • Find CPUs mentioned in the video
  • Use sliders for price, socket, cores, threads, and tags
  • View latest prices across US and international regions (e.g., UK/Europe)
• Individual CPU recommendations are linked in the description along with CPUs.gg.

Key technical themes used in judging CPUs

• Price/performance matters most for gaming.
• A recurring benchmark factor is gaming sensitivity to cache (L3):
  • CPUs with reduced L3 cache (e.g., “F” models) are called out as slower.
  • X3D models are emphasized as having very large L3 cache (up to ~96MB mentioned), improving gaming performance.
• Intel Core Ultra criticism centers on:
  • “LGA1851 is about to be replaced” by LGA1954 (Nova Lake) in 2026
  • Underwhelming gaming performance vs AMD
  • Upgrade path risk: buying Intel Core Ultra may require new motherboard (and possibly RAM) later
• Multi-CCD / core-count complaints:
  • The creator argues 12-core (6+6 CCD) designs can be “cursed” for gaming, sometimes losing to 8-core CCD chips despite higher core counts.
  • Even a 16-core can work for gaming if cache/CCD layout is favorable, but the creator emphasizes: “You don’t need 16 cores for gaming.”

Notable recommendations and critiques (from the described ranking)

Note: The subtitles don’t provide a clean full table, but specific CPUs and their rationales/tier placements are explicitly discussed.

Budget / value AM5 picks (early tier content)

• Ryzen 5 8400F (starting point discussed)
  • Initially criticized for half L3 cache vs comparable models, hurting gaming performance.
  • Re-evaluated based on price changes:
    • B-tier if found below ~$100
    • Otherwise C-tier at typical pricing (> $100)
• Ryzen 5 7400F
  • Compared to 7500F; tuning/downclocking differences noted (including IHS thermal paste vs solder considerations).
  • If available around ~$120, described as a good budget choice due to full 32MB L3.
• Ryzen 5 7500F
  • Highlighted as the best under ~$200 gaming CPU (price + performance).
  • Placed in S-tier.
• Ryzen 5 7600X
  • Called awkwardly priced because 9600X is similarly priced but faster.
  • Placed in B-tier.
• Ryzen 5 7600
  • Called pointless because it’s priced close to 7600X yet performs worse (with 7500F as better value).
  • Placed in D-tier.

APUs (separate category)

• APU concept
  • CPU + integrated Radeon GPU, aimed at small form factor PCs or users without a dedicated GPU.
• Ryzen 5 8500G
  • Described as “nerfed” with slower iGPU (740M-class).
  • Creator recommendation: avoid it; place in its own APU category rather than main CPU tiers.
• Ryzen 5 8600G
  • Improved iGPU (Radeon 760M mentioned) and better CPU configuration.
  • Rated better value than 8500G due to a small price delta.

Intel Core Ultra (main critique pattern)

• Core Ultra 225F
  • Suggested as unsuitable for gaming (“slow”), despite being more about editing (gaming isn’t the point).
  • Also criticized for being on a socket expected to be replaced in 2026 (LGA1851 → LGA1954).
  • Placed in C-tier (only redeeming factor is price).
• Core Ultra 245K
  • Positioned as poor value because:
    • Intel Core Ultra is repeatedly called slow
    • Platform upgrades are unlikely
    • Pricing isn’t competitive versus AMD options
  • Placed in D-tier.
• Core Ultra 265F
  • Framed as the most reasonable Core Ultra option compared to 265K.
  • Note: Even with decent pricing (~$250), socket longevity concerns remain.
  • Rated around top C-tier.
• Core Ultra 265K
  • Claims of heavy discounts, but still limited by platform risks and weak relative value.
  • Rated around C-tier.
• Core Ultra 285K
  • Strong negative verdict: called slow and not worth it for gamers.
  • Placed in E-tier.

Zen 5 AM5 midrange standouts

• Ryzen 5 9600X
  • Highlighted for occasional deep discounts (e.g., Prime Day / sales).
  • Strong gaming/single-thread performance and power efficiency improvements noted.
  • Rated S-tier when discounted; still strong near ~$200 otherwise.
• Ryzen 7 7700
  • “Best all-around” value in its segment, citing cooler 65W operation and near-7700X performance.
  • Rated S-tier.
• Ryzen 7 7700X
  • Considered attractive around ~$242 after discounts.
  • Placed in B-tier.

“Trap” CPU example (clear warning)

• Ryzen 7 8700F
  • Called a trap: only 16MB L3 cache (vs comparable chips with 32MB).
  • Despite the promising core count, performance is described as poor.
  • Explicit warning: “Do not get it.”
  • Presented as near the bottom tier range (worst offenders narrative discussed alongside CPUs like 8400F).

X3D cache CPUs (gaming performance emphasis)

• Explanation
  • X3D = massive L3 cache, often delivering big gaming gains.
• Ryzen 5 7600X3D
  • First X3D generation discussed; example cache figure around ~96MB.
  • Rated A-tier.
• Ryzen 7 7800X3D
  • Called a former top gaming CPU; still excellent.
  • Tier placement described as S-tier if priced reasonably versus 9800X3D.
• Ryzen 9 9800X3D
  • Described as likely the best gaming CPU (except for top near-equivalents).
  • Positive benchmark discussion includes criticism of “UserBenchmark” as a joke, but still concludes 9800X3D is best.
  • Rated top S-tier.
• Ryzen 9 9950X3D
  • Described as AMD’s “absolute best of the best.”
  • Rated at the bottom of S-tier (still S-tier, but not first in their final ordering).

Core-count cautions (12-core and 16-core)

• 12-core CPUs (6+6 CCD layout)
  • Creator argues they can lose in gaming vs 8-core CCD chips.
  • Explicit statement: “Don’t get a 12 core CPU for gaming.”
  • Examples discussed: 7900X, 7900, 9900X
    • Some placed in E-tier (e.g., narrative includes 7900X / 7900 as E-tier).
• 16-core CPUs (e.g., 7950X)
  • Viable but not recommended unless you specifically need 16 cores.
  • Example 7950X rated E-tier.
  • 9900X mentioned as D-tier in one place, despite the general “12-core slander,” described as allowed “for this one time.”

Main tier logic conclusions

• S-tier = “cream of the crop,” typically the best gaming experience for the money.
  • Often includes X3D options.
  • Also includes strong value non-X3D chips when discounted (e.g., 7500F, 7700, 9600X).
• D-tier often contains:
  • Bad value for gaming (pricing doesn’t match performance)
  • Underperforming cache configurations (notably “F” models with reduced L3)
  • Intel options that look poor value and/or have upgrade-path risks
• Strong avoid list called out explicitly:
  • 8700F (trap)
  • Intel Core Ultra lineup as a whole (with the caveat that a more reasonable pick like Core Ultra 7 265F can still be considered, especially when discounted—though socket longevity concerns remain).

Main speakers / sources

• Main speaker: The creator from Scutterville.
• Referenced sources/tools:
  • CPUs.gg (price/spec filtering website)
  • Tom’s Hardware (chart used for Intel Core Ultra comparisons)
  • computerbase.de (review referenced for Core Ultra 235/efficiency)
  • UserBenchmark (criticized as a “joke” during 9800X3D discussion, though referenced as a comparison point)