Best Cheap CPUs of 2019, Tested and Ranked

Credit: kkssr/stas11/ShutterstockCredit: kkssr/stas11/Shutterstock

There's never been a better time to buy a cheap CPU. AMD's latest processors have shaken up the low-cost landscape, so now you can find quad-core models with gaming-capable integrated graphics for a mere $100, and the Athlon lineup now dips as low as $55. Intel's response has brought Hyper-threading to its low-end Pentium processors and two additional cores to the Core i3 line, which greatly improves performance for its budget chips even though they're still limited in terms of their graphics. And while we await AMD's next-generation Ryzen 3000 CPUs,?several?AMD Ryzen processorshave seen price drops, though it's tough to tell how long those low prices will last.

But supply issues and the resulting price hikes have made Intel's Pentium chips a tougher sell. And AMD has taken advantage of this by introducing the Athlon 200GE, 220GE, and 240GE. All three of these chips are surprisingly capable at gaming even without a dedicated card. For more details about how the 200GE stacks up against Intel's comparable budget chip, see our feature AMD Athlon 200GE vs. Intel Pentium Gold G5400: Cheap CPU Showdown.

For those waiting for something new to spur their budget-chip-buying, Intel recently announced the full details of its Coffee Lake Refresh desktop CPUs, which include a few new Pentium and Celeron models, but the biggest news there is that these chips now support Intel's Optane Memory caching drives. We also know much more about AMD's latest Ryzen 3000 processors now that they were officially announced at Computex in Taipei?in May.?But as expected, the company will launch its high-end Ryzen 9 and Ryzen 7 chips first, along with mid-range Ryzen 5 models. We don't have a sense yet about when lower-end Athlon or Ryzen 3 CPUs will land.

Quick Shopping Tips

When choosing a CPU, consider the following:

  • You can't lose with AMD or Intel: Both companies offer good budget chips, and overall?CPU performance?between comparative parts is closer than it’s been in years. That said, if you’re primarily interested in gaming, Intel’s chips will generally deliver better performance when paired with a?graphics card, while AMD’s Raven Ridge models (like the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G) do a better job of delivering gaming-capable?performance?at modest settings and resolutions without the need for a graphics card.
  • Clock speed is more important than core count: Higher clock speeds translate to snappier performance in simple, common tasks such as gaming, while extra cores will help you get through time-consuming workloads faster.
  • Get the latest gen: You won't save much money in the long run by going with an older CPU
  • Budget for a full system: Don't pair a strong CPU with weak storage, RAM?and/or?graphics.
  • Overclocking isn’t for everyone, but the ability to squeeze more performance out of a budget offering is enticing. Intel doesn't have overclocking-capable processors for the sub-$125 market, but AMD's processors allow for tuning, and in most cases the bundled AMD cooler is sufficient for the task. Automated overclocking features in most motherboards?make the process simple and easy, so even the least tech-savvy users can enjoy the benefits.

For even more information, check out our CPU Buyer’s Guide, where we discuss how much you should spend for what you’re looking to do, and when cores matter more than high clock speeds. If you can expand your budget and buy a mainstream or high-end processor, check out our lists of?Best CPUs for Gaming?and?Best CPUs for Applications.?Below, you'll see our favorite budget picks.

Best Cheap CPUs

Core i3-8100Core i3-8100

1. Intel Core i3-8100

Best $100-$130 CPU Pick

Rating:?4/5

Architecture:?Coffee Lake | Cores/Threads: 4/4 | Base/Boost Frequency:?3.6/~ GHz | TDP: 65W | iGPU: UHD Graphics 630 | Graphics Frequency: 350 Mhz / 1.1 GHz

Pros: Four physical cores ? Good mix of gaming and application performance ? Low price ? Capable stock cooler

Cons: Locked multiplier ? No B-series motherboards (yet) ? No Hyper-Threading

The Coffee Lake Core i3-8100 is a quad-core processor with a 3.6 GHz frequency. Like all of Intel's Coffee Lake i3 lineup, the processor doesn't feature hyper-threading, so it only wields four threads. But the jump to four cores represents a significant performance upgrade over Intel's previous-gen dual-core models.

The Core i3-8100 comes armed with Intel's integrated UHD Graphics 630 engine while competing AMD models in this price range come without built-in graphics. That means you don't have to worry about splurging for a discrete video card if gaming isn't your top priority. Intel's integrated graphics aren't a great option for gaming, but the Core i3-8100's nimble performance in lightly-threaded tasks is a great pairing for lower-end graphics cards. The processor is also surprisingly powerful in productivity applications, which adds to the value.

Read Review: Meet Intel's Core i3-8100

Alternate $100-130 Pick:

MORE: Best Gaming CPUs

MORE: Best CPUs for Desktop Applications

Ryzen 3Ryzen 3

2. AMD Ryzen 3 2200G

Best $85-$100 Budget Pick

Rating:?4/5

Architecture: Zen | Cores/Threads: 4/4 | Base/Boost Frequency: 3.5/3.7 GHz | TDP: 65W | iGPU: Radeon Vega 8 | Graphics Frequency: 1.1 GHz

Pros: Price ? Higher frequencies ? Solid 720p gaming performance ? Unlocked multipliers

Cons: Eight lanes for PCIe slots ? Need to ensure motherboard BIOS compatibility ? Requires a better heatsink for overclocking

When money is tight, being able to game without a graphics card can lead to serious savings. And with RAM prices continuing to soar, those working with small budgets need to tighten the strings anywhere they can.

That makes the four-core, four-thread Ryzen 3 2200G particularly appealing for budget gaming builders and upgraders. The $99 chip delivers solid 720p performance thanks to its Vega on-chip graphics, decent CPU muscle for mainstream tasks, and can be dropped into an existing inexpensive 300-series motherboard (after a requisite BIOS update), to form the basis of a surprisingly capable low-cost PC. It’s also unlocked, so with proper cooling you can tune the graphics or the CPU to best suit your needs.

Read Review: AMD Ryzen 3 2200G Review: Vega Barrels Into Budget Gaming

Alternate $85-100 Pick:

MORE: AMD Processor Price List

MORE: Intel CPU Price List

Athlon 240GEAthlon 240GE

3. AMD Athlon 240GE

Best $60-$85 Entry-Level Pick

Rating:?4.5/5 (Editor's Choice)

Architecture: Zen | Cores/Threads: 2/4 | Base/Boost Frequency:?3.5/ ~ GHz | TDP: 35W | iGPU: Radeon Vega 3 | Graphics Frequency: 1 GHz

Pros: Attractive price ? Includes a bundled thermal solution ? Overclocking is possible, though officially unsupported ? All models provide similar performance after overclocking

Cons: Graphics engine and memory can't be overclocked ? Weak single-threaded performance

AMD's Athlon 240GE serves as the flagship of the company's budget lineup, but it still packs a convincing punch for low-end gaming systems. The integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics facilitate playable frame rates at lower resolutions and quality settings, but the 3.5 GHz base clock is the only differentiating feature between the Athlon 240GE and its counterparts. Due to the unofficial support for overclocking, that means you can tune the Athlon 200GE to the same top performance as the more expensive chips, but at a $20 price savings.

If overclocking isn't in your plans, the Athlon 240GE is the best budget chip in its price band. Intel's competing Pentium lineup lacks the graphical horsepower to be serious contenders for the extreme low-end of the budget gaming market, but they are attractive if gaming isn't your primary goal. That is, of course, if you can find them.

Read Review: AMD Athlon 240GE and 220GE Review: Retaking the Low Ground

MORE: Intel and AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPU Content

Athlon 200GEAthlon 200GE

4. AMD Athlon 200GE

Best Under $60 Entry-Level Pick

Rating: 3.5/5

Architecture: Zen | Cores/Threads: 2/4 | Base/Boost Frequency:?3.2/ ~ GHz | TDP: 35W | iGPU: Radeon Vega 3 | Graphics Frequency: 1.1 GHz

Pros: Attractive price ? Includes a bundled thermal solution ? Overclocking is possible, though officially unsupported ? All models provide similar performance after overclocking

Cons: Graphics engine and memory can't be overclocked ? Weak single-threaded performance

AMD’s sub-$60 Zen-based Athlon is a good all-around value, thanks to its four computing threads and Vega 3 graphics that are capable of light gaming at lower resolutions and settings. Lightly threaded performance isn’t great, but when you’re spending this little on a CPU, you should expect compromises somewhere. And while it isn’t officially supported by AMD, if you have a compatible motherboard, this chip can be overclocked to eke out some extra CPU performance.

If your build budget can swing it, the $100 Ryzen 3 2200G is a much better chip with more cores and beefier graphics. But if you can only spend $60 or less on your CPU and you aren’t adding a dedicated graphics card, the Athlon 200GE is tough to beat. Intel’s competing Pentiums, the Gold G5400 and G4560, deliver better CPU performance. But they have higher MSRPs, and production shortages have made them hard to find unless you’re willing to spend close to $100 or more, making them incomparable in terms of budget CPUs.

Read Review: AMD Athlon 200GE Review: Zen and Vega Get Cheap

Integrated Graphics Gaming Performance

You won't find many game titles that will play well at the popular 1920X1080 resolution on the sub-$80 chips, but there are a few.?As we can see, AMD's $100 Ryzen 3 2200G is the undisputed king of the hill for 1080p gaming on integrated graphics, but the Athlon chips also push out playable frame rates in a few titles (if you're willing to tolerate lower graphics quality settings).

Switching over to 1280x720 finds the Athlon processors providing up to 50 FPS at stock settings and experiencing a decent performance boost from overclocking. Remember, all of the Athlon chips will benefit equally from overclocking, meaning the Athlon 200GE and 220GE will achieve the same level of performance as the overclocked Athlon 240GE. That's an amazing value for these low-cost chips. It should go without saying, but the Ryzen 3 2200G's Radeon Vega 8 graphics engine blows through the 1280x720 tests with ease.

Intel's Pentium lineup, and even the Core i3-8100 for that matter, struggle tremendously under the weight of these titles. Gaming at 1920x1080 is a painful experience: You won't find many games that are playable on Pentium processors at that resolution. Switching over to the 1280x720 resolution brings the Core i3-8100 and Pentium G5600 into acceptable territory, but those chips still can't match the Athlon's performance, not to mention the crazy good savings. Intel's Pentium G5400 is particularly disappointing, though, due to its pared-down UHD Graphics 610 engine. We wouldn't recommend this processor for gaming on integrated graphics.

But it's hard to recommend Pentium processors at all right now. Intel is struggling with a shortage of 14nm production capacity, so these chips are extremely hard to find, and when you do find them, they are subject to severe price gouging.

Discrete GPU Gaming Performance

We focus primarily on integrated graphics gaming performance for ultra-budget chips, but these processors are also a great pairing with low-end discrete graphics cards. Below, we've tested the chips paired with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 2080 at the 1920x1080 resolution to remove any GPU limitations from our tests below. We tested with an Nvidia GeForce 1080 FE graphics card to remove graphics-imposed bottlenecks, but the difference between the processors will shrink with the cheaper graphics cards that are commonly found in budget builds. Provided the performance deltas are small, you can select less expensive models and enjoy nearly the same gaming experience with graphics cards on the lower-end of the GPU hierarchy.

Intel’s Coffee Lake Pentium models come with slight frequency improvements, a 3W increase in the TDP rating, and 4MB of L3 cache. These slight adjustments deliver a surprising boost to performance compared to the previous-gen Kaby Lake models. The Coffee Lake Pentium Gold G5600 even beats out the Kaby Lake Core i3-7100 in most of our gaming benchmarks, highlighting the impressive performance gains Intel made within a single generation.

The G5600 grapples with the Ryzen 3 2200G. The Ryzen 3 2200G is relatively simple to overclock with single-click options in the BIOS, and the bundled cooler provides enough headroom for all but the most extreme overclocking efforts. At stock settings, the 2200G trails the Intel Pentium Gold 5600, but the advantage of AMD’s unlocked multipliers is clear: At $99, the tuned Ryzen 3 2200G’s performance nearly matches the $117 Core i3-8100.

The Ryzen 3 2200G also comes with powerful integrated graphics that provide surprisingly strong gaming performance at lower resolutions and quality settings. That’s a feat the Core i3-8100 simply cannot match. If you’re seeking the absolute best gaming performance (when paired with a dedicated card) regardless of price, the Core i3-8100 fits the bill. If you want the most bang for your buck or plan on gaming on integrated graphics, the Ryzen 3 2200G is the clear value winner.

Productivity Performance

The Core i3-8100’s solid mixture of frequency and IPC throughput delivered to our expectations. The agile processor took the lead in several of our lightly-threaded applications, like the Adobe Cloud suite, but it is also surprisingly powerful in threaded workloads. The Intel Core i3-8100 also offers superior performance in applications that use AVX instructions, like HandBrake, which is a great addition to its impressively well-balanced repertoire. Much like we observed in our gaming tests, the Core i3-8100 offers the best overall performance.

Even after overclocking, the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X isn’t competitive enough with the Core i3-8100 to justify its higher price tag, and the lack of integrated graphics also restricts its appeal.

The Ryzen 3 2200G continues to impress with its lower price point and competitive performance, not to mention the integrated Vega graphics, making it the obvious choice for budget builders who are willing to spend a little extra time on tuning.

The Pentium lineup excels in most applications, but the Athlon processors also offer an impressive level of performance. It's also noteworthy that Intel's Pentium processors don't accelerate AVX instructions, a staple in many types of rendering applications, while the Athlon processors fully support the densely-packed instructions. Intel's chips lead in lightly-threaded applications, like web browsers, but the competing AMD chips also offer more than suitable performance in those workloads.

MORE: All CPU Content

This thread is closed for comments
18 comments
    Your comment
  • rwinches
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information. Try >=$200 graphics cards which could include some of the good used cards that are offered now. If you are going to add a discrete graphics card then the price of the GPU needs to be factored in which would mean the 2400G would be included. So that might mean a smaller CPU test group and a two part series, but the plus would be a much improved takeaway.
  • Shumok
    I think the only sensible options out of the group are the i3-8100, 2200G, or G5400.
  • InvalidError
    68963 said:
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information.

    Because the main objective of a CPU benchmark is to showcase the best possible performance that can be extracted from the CPUs being tested. The easiest way of achieving that is to simply throw the most powerful GPU currently available at it to produce results that will remain relevant for as long as the GPU being used remains relevant instead of testing multiple GPUs to find the cheapest one that doesn't bottleneck the fastest CPU being tested each time benchmark results get compiled (which would yield very similar frame rates anyway) and will be obsolete with nobody wanting to use it as a performance comparison reference as soon as the next GPU generation launches.

    Also, if AMD gets it its way, we'll be having 1080-class performance for ~$250 by this time next year. Most people building today will still have their i3-8100 or whatever else they buy by then. It is silly to limit GPUs only to the level of performance that currently makes economic sense as performance, especially when process shrinks are about to yield a massive bump in performance per buck.
  • Dugimodo
    And why can't you understand that all those results would be the same so you couldn't tell which CPU was better.
    In order to compare relative CPU performance you need to remove any other bottlenecks.

    If you want balance, check a CPU comparison and also a separate GPU comparison and pick one of each that offer comparable FPS results in the same tests. Testing these CPUs with a budget graphics card and getting 1-5 fps variance will tell you nothing.

    And yes it does matter, what is true today may not be true tomorrow so the more headroom your components have for your target FPS the better.
  • Gillerer
    If you want to test the "maximum performance" of a CPU, you use a multitude of number-crunching benchmarks. It's idiotic to use games to do so - especially since you need to employ unrealistic setups in order to get meaningful differences between CPUs. Either you have a way over the top GPU, or way underwhelming graphics settings/resolution - both uncharacteristic of what an actual gamer on the specific budget would use. It's disingenuous to present those results as if they actually had any connect to the experience of playing the game.

    Why use an unsuitable tool to test CPUs?

    Answer: Most non-professional technology enthusiasts are very interested in game performance. Being able to (artificially) produce gaming benchmarks that indicate large differences between CPUs is one way to increase view counts. After all, many people reading the article won't be paying any attention to the fact that the game benchmarks are supposed to be read as "maximum performance" CPU benchmarks - they'll just take away the FPS numbers and think they'll see similar results.
  • InvalidError
    1423473 said:
    If you want to test the "maximum performance" of a CPU, you use a multitude of number-crunching benchmarks. It's idiotic to use games to do so

    Different games stress CPUs differently and have different levels of optimization, same goes for drivers so performance in games can't be taken as a given based on "number-crunching" result just as results in one number-crunching benchmark aren't necessarily representative of performance in other number-crunching workloads. If you want to know the best-case performance that can be expected of a CPU in any given game, you have to test that specific game, just like you have to test specific applications if you want to know the performance in that application.

    With a lower-end GPU, you can't tell if the FPS is being limited by the CPU or GPU, which makes the result worthless as a CPU benchmark.
  • gasaraki
    68963 said:
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information. Try >=$200 graphics cards which could include some of the good used cards that are offered now. If you are going to add a discrete graphics card then the price of the GPU needs to be factored in which would mean the 2400G would be included. So that might mean a smaller CPU test group and a two part series, but the plus would be a much improved takeaway.


    Because this a a CPU performance ranking, NOT best CPU at gaming for the money ranking.
  • BulkZerker
    And again upgradeability is glossed over, as is motherboard prices (or rather, what you get for the money you spend).
  • madmatt30
    Not entirely sure why the g5400 gets an 8/10 same as the Ryzen 2200g ??

    $2 less, inferior in every single way imo.
  • InvalidError
    1031363 said:
    Not entirely sure why the g5400 gets an 8/10 same as the Ryzen 2200g ?? $2 less, inferior in every single way imo.

    $100 vs $70 ($96 vs $64 on Amazon) is $30 less for the G5400.
  • 80-watt Hamster
    68963 said:
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information. Try >=$200 graphics cards which could include some of the good used cards that are offered now. If you are going to add a discrete graphics card then the price of the GPU needs to be factored in which would mean the 2400G would be included. So that might mean a smaller CPU test group and a two part series, but the plus would be a much improved takeaway.


    The methodology is explained in the article, every article like it, and in every article comments section. The answers don't change, and the methodology is sound. InvalidError describes it well, but I'll take a stab at it since that explanation doesn't seem to be sufficient.

    A processor's primary job in a game is to throw data at the GPU to interpret. So the question to be answered is: which of these CPUs does that job best? Using mid- or lower-range graphics won't necessarily tell us this, because the GPU can become the limiting factor. How useful would a comparison be where all chips perform the same? Let's look at a couple of cards that meet the $200-or-less criteria (based on MSRP). In Tom's GTX 1050 review, the 1050 ti, which does still sell for less than two Benjamins, averages 67.6 fps across the test suite (ignoring SC2 as an outlier). The RX 570, which is supposed to sell for under two bills, hits 91.1.

    There are issues with that comparison, though. The suite in this test uses a tougher group at higher settings, and the old one didn't chart 99th percentile FPS. 99th percentile drops results vs average by about 20%, and let's subtract, say, 10% off the top for the more strenuous tests. Now we're looking at 60.8 and 82.0 average and 48.7 and 65.6 99th FPS. That means that for the 1050ti, everything from the 2200G on up will rank the same in average, and the top three chips will have identical 99th percentile results. The 570 would provide meaningful numbers, but one can't know that ahead of time. Anyway, here's what a summary chart using the 1050 ti would potentially look like. I don't know about you, but those results don't look as useful to me.

  • InvalidError
    1781251 said:
    Anyway, here's what a summary chart using the 1050 ti would potentially look like. I don't know about you, but those results don't look as useful to me.

    You could have tossed an i9-7960X in there for good measure, just to illustrate how using an under-powered GPU for a CPU benchmarks defeats the point of doing game benchmarks. There is little difference between a $60 CPU and a $2000 CPU once the GPU becomes a consistent bottleneck.

    People who want to match CPUs to GPUs can take the CPU performance results and match them with GPU benchmark results to find out what minimum GPU they'd need to achieve comparable performance.
  • 80-watt Hamster
    125865 said:
    You could have tossed an i9-7960X in there for good measure, just to illustrate how using an under-powered GPU for a CPU benchmarks defeats the point of doing game benchmarks. There is little difference between a $60 CPU and a $2000 CPU once the GPU becomes a consistent bottleneck. People who want to match CPUs to GPUs can take the CPU performance results and match them with GPU benchmark results to find out what minimum GPU they'd need to achieve comparable performance.


    Do you have that data in the appropriate context? I'll add it if I can find a way to include it that makes sense.
  • Giroro
    It's valuable to know at which point the bottleneck moves from the CPU to the GPU.
    For example, if you were using a GTX 1050 and found that a $60 Pentium performs exactly the same as a $120 core i3 in gaming, then there isn't much reason to spend that extra $60 on CPU.

    So while, yes, knowing which CPU is the absolute best is nice in the grand scheme of things, it isn't helpful to someone who is actually building a budget Gaming PC. It would be helpful to have some examples of lower end graphics simply to help people figure out how to balance all of those tradeoffs. Otherwise it just makes people think they need a much more expensive CPU than they actually do, because the CPU always ends up looking like the bottleneck.

    So it's like the opposite direction of approaching the problem. Since the GPU in a gaming computer is by far the most important part, you start with a fixed low/midrange GPU than figure out the lowest amount of money you need to spend to utilize the GPU's full potential. That's what people mean by "real world". It doesn't need to be every test, but seeing it as an add-on would be nice.

    Plus, things start getting even muddier when part of the Ryzen 2200G's recommendation is because of it's integrated graphics, which were not tested here.. But I know they've been tested vs a gtx 1030. There could have at least been a link.
  • ElectrO_90
    Why are you adding End of Life products?
    Are you trying to get people to buy a product that they then can never upgrade without a new motherboard?
    I didn't even see you mention that if you buy an i3-7xxx you will be stuck with no upgrade path by allowing EOL.
    This should be a WARNING in your statement. Absolutely mental.
    Why not recommend some 6 series, as you can still get them "new"
  • InvalidError
    1781251 said:
    Do you have that data in the appropriate context? I'll add it if I can find a way to include it that makes sense.

    That was in jest, I doubt any credible source has actually bothered benchmarking a GTX1050 on an HEDT platform.

    1886042 said:
    It's valuable to know at which point the bottleneck moves from the CPU to the GPU.

    You don't need to test lower-end GPUs on each CPU to deduce that: if a GTX1080Ti delivers 70fps in a given game on an i3-8100 where it is clearly CPU-bottlenecked, then a GPU which benchmarks at 70+fps in the same game on a 5GHz i7-8700k where the GPU clearly is the bottleneck should be able to deliver the better part of the same 70fps on the i3. No need to multiply the number of benchmark runs tenfold to test a wide range of CPU-GPU combos.

    I don't know how much Paul is paid but I'd wager he's not paid anywhere near enough for this sort of story to afford increasing his workload by several times only for the convenience of people who can't be bothered to cross-examine charts between CPU and GPU benchmarks to come up with their own matches.

    Also, even if CPUs came with individual GPU recommendations, what GPU delivers the best bang per buck varies significantly based on which games you favor, so the best match for me or in my opinion isn't necessarily the best match for you. If you want results specifically relevant to you, you still have to dig out the CPU and GPU charts then do your own matching anyway.
  • iam2thecrowe
    68963 said:
    Yeah because I'm gonna spend >=$130 and pair it with a $500+ graphics card. Why can't you understand real-world test setup provides actionable information. Try >=$200 graphics cards which could include some of the good used cards that are offered now. If you are going to add a discrete graphics card then the price of the GPU needs to be factored in which would mean the 2400G would be included. So that might mean a smaller CPU test group and a two part series, but the plus would be a much improved takeaway.


    Its about not bottle-necking the CPU to test it properly, nothing to do with testing graphics cards. You give it all the runway it can to show it's potential. If you bottleneck the CPU with a mid-range GPU they might all appear to perform the same.
  • BlueCat57
    @Rwinches - I agree. Why not start with a Ryzen 5 2400G at about $155.

    Now, if you are like me and already have decent graphics cards and are just looking to update your 4+ year old CPU, then these options might make sense.

    But right now with graphics card prices so high, I'd start with a Ryzen 5 2400G for a low-end system. Alternatively, I would build a system around a USED graphics card and hope for the best.
热博RB88 <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <文本链> <文本链> <文本链> <文本链> <文本链> <文本链>