OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i5-L16G7 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£230PassMark multi-core score:3287N. of physical cores:5CPU boost clock speed:3.0 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):7 W

Intel Core i5-L16G7 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components

40%

4.1

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 74% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
4.1

Technical score

Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

5.9

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 82%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £230
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i5-L16G7

Technical score
Technical score
4.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components:

60%

2.9

Performance

18%

5.9

Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

4.1
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.0

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

7.0
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
?
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX instruction sets, which is narrower support than 97.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
5
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 5 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.3% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU threads
5
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 5 CPU threads, which is fewer than 68.8% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3 GHz which is lower than that of 93.4% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
1x 1.4 GHz & 4x 1.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 1x1.4 GHz & 4x1.4 GHz which is lower than that of 79.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,287
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,287 in PassMark, which is lower than 83.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 19.5% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 10 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 51.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
336 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 336 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR LPDDR4X, which is older than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,267 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,267 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-4267 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-4267 MHz, which is higher than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
8 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 64EU
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 64EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 58.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
64
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 86.7% of processors and equal to 3.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.8% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 73.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
7 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 7 W which is lower than that of 96.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
7 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 7 W which is lower than that of 96.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i5-L16G7 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.21x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,276.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,276.39 vs 398.015
  • 84.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 84.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 33.3% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,267 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,267 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.21x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,276.4 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,276.39 vs 398.015
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 53.7% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (82 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    82 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 33.3% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,267 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,267 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    64 vs 24
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 84.4% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • 84.4% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (7 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    7 W vs 45 W
  • 88.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (588 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    588 vs 5,209
  • 71.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,287 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,287 vs 11,469
  • 31.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 38.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,566 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,566 vs 2,558
  • 61.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (588 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    588 vs 1,535
  • 82.9% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (479 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    479 vs 2,804.5
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 56.8% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (0.8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    0.8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 3.9% worse value for money
    Intel Core i5-L16G7 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.01 vs 7.3).
    7.01 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 88.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (588 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    588 vs 5,209
  • 71.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,287 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,287 vs 11,469
  • 31.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 38.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,566 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,566 vs 2,558
  • 61.7% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (588 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    588 vs 1,535
  • 82.9% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (479 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    479 vs 2,804.5
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x1.4 GHz & 4x1.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x1.4 GHz & 4x1.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 3 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (5 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    5 vs 8
  • 1 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (5 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    5 vs 6
  • 14 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (14 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    14 vs 28
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 56.8% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (0.8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    0.8 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 10 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (6 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    6 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x2/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x2/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 27.5% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    34 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 87.5% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 1 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    1 vs 2
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i5-L16G7

  • Extremely low power consumption (7W TDP) ideal for ultra-thin, fanless designs
  • Seamless compatibility with the full Windows x86 ecosystem compared to ARM-based rivals
  • Gen11 integrated graphics offer decent performance for its power class
  • Foveros 3D stacking technology allows for a tiny physical footprint in mobile devices
  • Silent operation in laptops like the Galaxy Book S due to low heat output

What customers don't like about Intel Core i5-L16G7

  • Weak multi-core performance compared to contemporary mobile processors
  • Lack of Hyper-Threading (5 cores, 5 threads) limits multitasking capabilities
  • Scheduling issues where tasks 'bounce' between big and small cores, causing lag
  • Significantly slower single-core speeds than older 'Amber Lake' Y-series chips
  • Experimental hybrid architecture resulted in inconsistent real-world responsiveness
  • Not suitable for gaming or demanding professional workloads like video editing

Verdict

The Intel Core i5-L16G7 is a unique 5-core, 5-thread processor from the 'Lakefield' family designed for ultra-thin laptops and foldables, featuring a 1.4 GHz base and up to 3.0 GHz turbo frequency with a low 7W TDP. Its hybrid architecture combines one high-performance Sunny Cove core with four power-efficient Tremont cores using Foveros 3D packaging, offering integrated UHD Graphics with 64 execution units and support for fast LPDDR4X-4267 memory. Main pros include exceptional power efficiency for extended battery life and a compact footprint that enables innovative, slim device designs. However, it suffers from limited multi-core performance only suitable for basic daily tasks, lacks Hyper-Threading, and has faced documented OS scheduling issues that can hinder real-world responsiveness.

Compare Intel Core i5-L16G7 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i5-L16G7 and other processors

No results found