Best CPUs for productivity in 2024

While there are great CPUs for gaming and great CPUs for workstations, one area that you might not often think about using a CPU for is simple productivity apps, like Microsoft Office. These apps can be considered relatively quaint and simple compared to games, video editing software, and renderers, but some CPUs are better for productivity than others.

When selecting a productivity CPU, you don't really need anything fancy; what you really want is to maximize your bang for buck and make sure your CPU can work well in a variety of PCs. Thankfully, both current generation and last generation CPUs are great for productivity, and here are my recommendations in 2023.

These are the best CPUs for productivity in 2023

The best overall CPU for productivity is Intel's Core i5-12400, a lower midrange chip that has some of the best bang for buck in the current market while also offering decent to good performance in a variety of applications. It's certainly not the fastest CPU you can get, but since productivity apps aren't that demanding, it's a good fit for pretty much all of them.

The 12400 is an older Intel chip based on the company's 2021 Alder Lake architecture, and is equipped with six P-cores and no fancy E-cores. While these specs aren't super impressive, it does get a pretty decent score in Cinebench, putting it on par with high-end CPUs from 10th- and 11th-generation as well as other midrange Intel and AMD CPUs of the past two generations. This score in Cinebench indicates it's decent enough for stuff like Microsoft Office, LibreOffice, and other similar applications, even photo and video editing if you do that as a hobby.

One of the reasons why I recommend the 12400 rather than the cheaper 12400F, which is identical when it comes to CPU specifications, is because the 12400 has integrated graphics. While Intel's integrated graphics on the 12400 aren't particularly fast, they are decent enough for light gaming and also come with good encoding technology, including Quick Sync, which can help lots in video editing for instance.

At the time of writing, the 12400 is about $170, but as an older CPU its supply and price can go up and down pretty frequently. It's probably not worth paying more than $200 for, because at that point it's uncomfortably close to much better CPUs like the Core i5-12600K(F) and Core i5-13400(F). You could also opt for the 12400F if you want to save some money, but keep in mind you'll need a graphics card for video output instead of using the integrated graphics.

While AMD undeniably has the better raw horsepower this generation, Ryzen 7000 is kind of expensive and is actually lacking in some areas against Intel. So, the Ryzen 5 7600 is a good alternative to the 12400 rather than being on par or just a simply better option. It comes at a higher cost and only offers marginally better performance, but has a better upgrade path and much better efficiency, so if that's what you care about, then the 7600 might be for you.

The 7600, like the 12400, also has six cores, but are based on the newer Zen 4 architecture from 2022, a full year ahead of Alder Lake which came out in 2021. That might sound like the 7600 is much better, but in Cinebench the 7600 is only about 5% faster in the single-threaded test and 15% faster in the multithreaded test, but single-threaded performance is more relevant for productivity, making the 7600 not a ton better. However, it is a fair bit more efficient than the 12400, though not by a massive margin

While the 7600 does have integrated graphics, unfortunately they lack the great encoding performance seen on the 12400 with its Quick Sync feature. These graphics are marginally ahead of the 12400 in raw horsepower, but that won't really make a difference in anything but gaming, which is really only possible in very light games.

At $230 as I'm writing this, the 7600 is way more expensive than the 12400 for about the same performance and fewer features. That price difference will add up when you consider the motherboard and RAM costs too. On the other hand, going with the 7600 means you'll be buying an AM5 motherboard with a theoretically better upgrade path since it will receive new CPUs long after the 12400 and its LGA 1700 socket will. If that and better efficiency is worth spending more for, then feel free to get the 7600.

While productivity apps can be run on even a relatively weak CPU, sometimes you might want an extra boost for something like photo editing, video editing, and maybe the occasional Blender render. For something with a little more power behind it, the Core i5-13600K could be a pretty good choice, as it's pretty affordable and also has great performance.

The 13600K is based on the Raptor Lake architecture and comes with six P-cores and eight E-cores, making it Intel's third-fastest CPU in the 13th-generation product stack and about fifth place overall when considering AMD's flagship Ryzen 7000 chips. It's more than a match for the basic productivity apps like Microsoft Office and will also do well in heavier stuff like Adobe apps, Blender, and DaVince Resolve.

Of course, being an Intel CPU the 13600K comes with integrated graphics that feature Quick Sync. While you are likely to pair the 13600K with a powerful GPU, perhaps even one made for professional software, Quick Sync is still really useful for video editing. Of course, you could also skip the GPU entirely depending on what you do, which is why Intel's integrated graphics are so nice for this kind of stuff.

At roughly $320, the 13600K is actually fairly cheap for what it offers. It is a bit of a power guzzler and doesn't come with a stock cooler, so you will have to spend some extra money on a good CPU cooler, but you can easily find a top-end air cooler for $35 anyway. Choosing the 13600K leaves you with a pretty short upgrade path since faster 13th- and 14th-generation chips don't offer much more performance, however.

If you're after something with more power efficiency compared to the Core i5-13600K, then AMD's Ryzen 9 7900 might be what you want. It has the same power consumption as the Ryzen 5 7600 but double the cores, making it perhaps the most power efficient desktop CPU you can buy today. It's even faster than the 13600K across the board by a decent margin.

The 7900 is basically the same as a 7900X, having 12 cores but limited to a 65 watt TDP instead of the 7900X's 170 watts. While the 7600 and 7700 perform about the same as their X-class counterparts, the 7900 is actually significantly slower than the 7900X in multithreaded workloads, while its single-threaded performance is about the same across both chips. Compared to the 13600K, the 7900 is about 10% faster in multithreaded workloads despite consuming about 100 watts less. This makes it a great chip for rendering and other heavily multithreaded apps.

However, since AMD integrated graphics lack the encoding power of Intel's graphics, you might have a rough time in video editing. On the other hand, you're likely to pair the 7900 with a discrete GPU anyway, and you can get great encoding performance from AMD, Nvidia, or even Intel graphics cards. Still, it's a definite disadvantage that the 7900 doesn't have anything like Quick Sync.

Usually the 7900 retails for a little over $400, about $100 more than the 13600K, making it a worse value, but it does have the benefit of being much more efficient and based on a platform with a longer life span. By the way, if you find that the 7900X is at a better price, you could buy it and enable Eco Mode to essentially turn it into a 7900. However, at the time of writing the 7900X is much more expensive, so going with the 7900 itself is the best idea if you're after efficiency.

If the Core i5-13600K and Ryzen 9 7900 aren't fast enough for what you want to do, then you might want the Core i9-13900K, which is essentially a mainstream workstation CPU. It's definitely overkill for most productivity stuff, but if you find yourself mostly on the end of photo editing, video editing, and rendering, then you'll want this fast and powerful chip.

The 13900K utilizes the biggest and fullest version of Raptor Lake, coming with eight P-cores and 16 E-cores. The 13900K is on par with the Ryzen 9 7950X in both single- and multithreaded workloads, and it's more than enough to tackle pretty much anything you can throw at it. It's essentially a more mainstream version of a workstation CPU like you'd find with Intel's Xeon or AMD's Threadripper. However, this performance comes at a great cost: power. The 13900K consumes tons of power, meaning you need a good PSU and cooler for it.

You're almost certainly going to be pairing this CPU with a powerful GPU like the RTX 4090 or the RX 7900 XTX, which does diminish the value of the 13900K's integrated graphics and Quick Sync. Still, Quick Sync can still be pretty good and there are lots of creators that swear by it even when paired with a top-end graphics card. If you're using something older or lower-end that doesn't have the encoding prowess of the 4090 or 7900 XTX, then Quick Sync will remain quite useful.

You'll usually find the 13900K going for $550 to $600, which is a fair bit cheaper than the 7950X, which is more efficient but lacks Quick Sync. Another downside of the 13900K is also its upgrade path, as LGA 1700 ends with 14th-generation chips, which are just Raptor Lake again, meaning the 13900K will remain as one of the fastest LGA 1700 CPUs. Still, these downsides are probably worth it just for Quick Sync, but if you know you won't need it, you can feel free to grab a 7950X instead.

If you only have about $100 or so to spare for a CPU, you'll have a hard time finding anything good, but if it's productivity then you'll be more than happy with Intel's Core i3-12100. It's one of the cheapest CPUs you can get for LGA 1700 motherboards, has decent enough performance, and crucially has integrated graphics that allows you to skip out on a graphics card.

With just four P-cores based on the Alder Lake architecture, the 12100 is undeniably weak and low-end, but it will be sufficient enough for Microsoft Office and any web-based apps. It'll definitely struggle a bit when it comes to anything like photo editing, video editing, rendering, and other workloads, but it's a super cheap CPU, so you can't expect much.

But one of the killer features of the 12100 is its integrated graphics, which aren't fast but crucially have support for Quick Sync, which will massively speed up the 12100 in video editing and anything else that benefits from good encoding tech. This means you could theoretically get by with just a 12100 for video editing, and while the experience probably won't be great, it could be just good enough to make it work. Plus, integrated graphics mean you don't need to buy a graphics card.

At $120, the 12100 is overall a pretty good deal. However, as a last generation chip, you might have a hard time finding it sometimes, so you might want to get the Core i3-13100 as a backup. Both the 12100 and 13100 actually use the same exact Alder Lake chip, so they're essentially the same, it's just that the 12100 is usually cheaper. Old AMD CPUs like the Ryzen 5 5600G are possible alternatives, but poor supply, an extremely weak upgrade path, and the lack of good encoding performance are all very significant drawbacks that make them hard to recommend.

Best CPUs for productivity to buy in 2023: Final thoughts

Thanks to a combination of low pricing, good performance, and excellent encoding performance, I definitely recommend Intel's Core i5-12400 as the best overall CPU for productivity. At less than $200, it's very affordable and has respectable performance compared to the much more expensive Ryzen 5 7600, which is a little faster but crucially lacks the encoding capabilities that Intel Quick Sync brings. Whether you're building a budget productivity or workstation PC or something more midrange, the 12400 is a great choice.

If you need something faster, the Core i5-13600K would be my first choice and then there's also the Core i9-13900K if you want top-end performance, though the Ryzen 9 7900 is very compelling if you want something extremely power efficient and also a tiny bit faster. The 7900 doesn't have Quick Sync though, so it's not as good for video editing. If you're on a tight budget, the Core i3-12100 or 13100 are the best options since they have Quick Sync for just over $100.