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 i7-1065G7 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£360PassMark multi-core score:8114N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1526TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i7-1065G7 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 7 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.4/10

Overall score

Score
6.4/ 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 59% of models
Score components

40%

4.8

Technical score

25%

7.7

Reviews score

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 59% of processors
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 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 66% of models
Score components

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 66%
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 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 65% of models
Score components

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 65%
7.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.7/ 10
✕
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
â–² Better than 55% of models

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 55%
?

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~ £360
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i7-1065G7

Based on 5 · 2

Reviewers like its capable integrated graphics, but are split on whether it's actually good enough for gaming.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7-1065G7

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 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 65% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

4.8
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 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 66% of models
Score components:

70%

6.4

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

7.1
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
FCBGA1526
This processor uses the FCBGA1526 CPU socket, which is older than that of 80% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Chipset
Z790, B660
This processor supports Z790, B660 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
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
MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 58.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 67% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.3 GHz which is lower than that of 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
8,114
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 8,114 in PassMark, which is lower than 58.6% 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
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% 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
320 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 320 KB which is smaller than that of 56.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
3,733 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,733 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.4% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-3733 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-3733 MHz, which is higher than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to 0.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Plus Graphics
This processor uses the Intel Iris Plus Graphics integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 65.1% 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
?
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
51 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 51 W which is lower than that of 70% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i7-1065G7 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–² Better than 55% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 20.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (51 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    51 W vs 64 W
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–² Better than 55% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Ice Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 24.3% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (58.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    58.3 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 20.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (51 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    51 W vs 64 W
  • 63.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1901 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,901 vs 5,209
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 11.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 41.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,639 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,639 vs 2,804.5
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, 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, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 29.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,114 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,114 vs 11,469
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 44% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-1065G7 is more expensive than the average processor (£360 vs £250).
    £360 vs £250
  • 2.9% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7-1065G7 has worse value for money than the average processor (7.08 vs 7.3).
    7.08 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, 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, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1526 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1526 vs FP5
  • 63.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1901 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,901 vs 5,209
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 11.4% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x1.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 41.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,639 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,639 vs 2,804.5
  • 29.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,114 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,114 vs 11,469
  • 10.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,278 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,278 vs 2,558
  • 10.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (438 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    438 vs 490
  • 15 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (13 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    13 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
  • 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

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
27/11/2019
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and comparisons
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1065G7 is a decent single-chip gaming option, but discrete GPU laptops are still clearly better.
5.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
19/11/2019
Benchmark review · CPU and iGPU tests against 14nm chips
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1065G7 is a weak start for Intel's 10nm line, offering little CPU gain over 14nm chips.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
24/11/2019
Benchmark review · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The Core i7-1065G7 is a 10nm laptop chip with much faster integrated graphics and single-thread speed, but its multi-thread speed matches the older 14nm Core i5-10210U.
8.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
05/12/2019
Gaming test · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1065G7 handles older and competitive games like Overwatch and Fortnite at low settings, but demanding new games still need a discrete graphics card.
8.0
laptopmag.com
≈ estimated
01/08/2019
Benchmark test · Ultraportable chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1065G7 is a solid step up from the previous generation, around 20 to 30 percent faster, but demanding games still need a separate graphics card.
8.0
indiatoday.in
✓ explicit
12/08/2020
Hands-on review · Ultraportable laptop
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1065G7 in the Acer Swift 5 is a fast, cool-running chip in a light laptop for everyday work and editing, but it's not built for demanding games.
7.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
≈ estimated
11/04/2020
Benchmark test · Laptop processor
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1065G7 is a quiet, efficient laptop chip with modest real-world gains, but its built-in graphics are unsuited to modern 3D games.
9.0
laptopspirit.fr
≈ estimated
28/10/2019
Head-to-head test · Ultrabook chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1065G7 performs close to the previous Core i7 with a separate graphics card, and its built-in Iris graphics are its strongest point.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-1065G7

  • Significantly improved integrated graphics (Iris Plus G7) compared to previous 14nm generations
  • Excellent single-threaded performance for day-to-day productivity tasks like web browsing and office work
  • Highly power-efficient 10nm architecture with a low 15W TDP, contributing to longer laptop battery life
  • Supports fast memory (LPDDR4-3733), which boosts overall system responsiveness and benchmark scores
  • Integrated support for modern standards like Thunderbolt 3 and Wi-Fi 6
  • Capable of handling light creative workloads, including basic photo and video editing

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-1065G7

  • Multi-threaded performance is underwhelming compared to higher core-count rivals like the 6-core i7-10710U
  • Still struggles with modern AAA games; graphically intensive titles often remain unplayable even at low settings
  • Performance is heavily dependent on the laptop's thermal design and power limit settings (15W vs 25W modes)
  • Integrated graphics drivers can be buggier for gaming compared to AMD's competitive offerings
  • Often found in higher-priced 'premium' laptops, making it less of a value choice than some AMD Ryzen alternatives

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-1065G7 is a 10th Gen 'Ice Lake' quad-core processor built on a 10nm process, featuring 8 threads, a 1.3GHz base clock, and a 3.9GHz max turbo boost. Key highlights include 8MB of Intel Smart Cache and high-performance Iris Plus G7 integrated graphics with 64 execution units, making it ideal for thin-and-light laptops requiring AI acceleration and Wi-Fi 6 support. While it offers excellent power efficiency and strong integrated GPU performance for its class, it is held back by relatively low base clock speeds and a tendency for thermal throttling in compact chassis under sustained heavy workloads.

Compare Intel Core i7-1065G7 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 i7-1065G7 and other processors

No results found