OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i7 10710U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£390PassMark benchmark result:9201N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i7 10710U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.2

Overall score

Score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Score components

90%

5.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 59% of processors
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
Score components

60%

5.0

Performance

18%

4.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 57% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £390

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 i7 10710U

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
Score components:

60%

5.0

Performance

18%

4.2

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.1

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.7

Integrated Graphics

5.2
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i7 10710U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.1/ 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 72% of models
Score components:

60%

5.2

Overall score

40%

8.5

Price

6.1
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1528
CPU socket
FCBGA1528
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1528 CPU socket, which is older than that of 77.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
6
N. of physical cores
6
â–² Better than 50% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 49.9% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
CPU threads
12
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 55% of processors and equal to 14.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
â–² Better than 67% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 67.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 1.1 GHz & 12x 1.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 1.1 GHz & 12x 1.1 GHz
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x1.1 GHz & 12x1.1 GHz which is higher than that of 65.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
L3 cache
12 MB
â–² Better than 54% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
L2 cache
1.5 MB
L2 cache
1.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1.5 MB which is smaller than that of 62.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
â–² Better than 45% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44.9% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR4
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR4
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR4, which is older than that of 74.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-2933 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-2933 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 57% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 55.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
â–² Better than 66% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 65.8% of processors and equal to 2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
45 W
Boost power (PL2)
45 W
â–² Better than 70% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 45 W which is lower than that of 69.6% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i7 10710U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 9.3% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.7 GHz
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 1.1 GHz & 12 x 1.1 GHz
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x1.1 GHz & 12x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x1.1 GHz & 12x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 25% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    45 W
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (45 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    45 W vs 60 W
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 9.3% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.7 GHz
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 1.1 GHz & 12 x 1.1 GHz
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x1.1 GHz & 12x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x1.1 GHz & 12x1.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 50% larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    12 MB
    â–² Better than 54% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    12 MB vs 8 MB
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 25% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    45 W
    â–² Better than 70% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (45 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    45 W vs 60 W
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 9.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,273
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,273 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,273 vs 2,500
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 56% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 10710U is more expensive than the average processor (£390 vs £250).
    £390 vs £250
  • 6.8% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 10710U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.15 vs 6.6).
    6.15 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1528
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1528 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1528 vs FP4
  • 9.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,273
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,273 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,273 vs 2,500
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    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
  • 13% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    9,201
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,201 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    9,201 vs 10,572.5
  • 6.5% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    457
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (457 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    457 vs 489
  • 17 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    11
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (11 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    11 vs 28
  • 10.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    2,490
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,490 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,490 vs 2,791
  • 9.5% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    4,369
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,369 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,369 vs 4,829
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Comet Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 40% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR4
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 9.1% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,666 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode)
    â–² Better than 66% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
25/11/2020
Summary of the review
Comparison: Intel Core i7-1165G7 vs Intel Core i7-10710U
L
laptopmedia.com
06/11/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U vs i7-9750H – it’s up to you to decide
L
laptopmedia.com
10/02/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U vs i7-8665U – no more whiskey for the latter
L
legitreviews.com
30/04/2020
Summary of the review
Intel NUC NUC10i7FNH Review – Frost Canyon – Comet Lake
L
laptopmedia.com
08/05/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-1065G7 vs i7-10710U – the Comet Lake wins, big time
L
laptopmedia.com
29/10/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U vs Core i7-10510U – the 10710U is a little more expensive and much more powerful
N
notebookcheck.net
05/11/2019
Summary of the review
Dell XPS 13 7390 Core i7-10710U Laptop Review
T
techspot.com
17/10/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U Benchmarked: 14nm+++ Comet Lake
T
tomshardware.com
05/02/2020
Summary of the review
MSI Prestige 14 Review: Think Pink
T
tomshardware.com
05/11/2019
Summary of the review
Dell XPS 13 Review: Comet Lake is Here
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
13/06/2020
Summary of the review
Comet Lake – Intel Core i7-10710U Review
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
18/09/2019
Summary of the review
Hands-On: What the Intel Core i7-10710U Can Do in the MSI Prestige 15", "Tested: Intel Core i7-10710U Performance in the MSI Prestige 15
(Translated)Show original
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
08/06/2020
Summary of the review
Intel NUC Frost Canyon (i7-10710U) Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
16/01/2020
Summary of the review
All our articles tagged Intel Core i7-10710U - LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
29/10/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U vs Core i7-10510U – the 10710U is slightly more expensive and much more powerful
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopspirit.fr
23/01/2020
Summary of the review
MSI Prestige 14 A10SC Review – The Most Powerful 14-Inch Ultrabook (Core i7-10710U Hexa-Core, GTX 1650)
(Translated)Show original
V
valid.x86.fr
17/10/2019
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Single-Thread Benchmark for Intel Core i7-10710U
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
29/10/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U vs Core i7-10510U: Is the 10710U much more powerful?
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
N/A
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U - specifications and benchmark tests
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
26/11/2020
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-1165G7 vs Intel Core i7-10710U Comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
06/11/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-10710U vs i5-10210U – This is a tough call
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 10710U

  • High core count (6 cores, 12 threads) provides excellent multitasking and multi-threaded performance for an ultrabook-class CPU.
  • Strong single-core performance, outperforming many contemporary rivals in lightly threaded tasks.
  • Competitive performance-per-watt; can trade blows with higher TDP chips (like the Ryzen 7 3750H) in specific workloads.
  • Large 12MB L3 cache significantly improves efficiency in data-heavy tasks.
  • Highly capable for mobile productivity tasks such as photo editing and code compilation.

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 10710U

  • Weak integrated graphics (Intel UHD 620) that is largely unchanged from previous generations and unsuitable for modern gaming.
  • Heavy reliance on laptop cooling; performance can be severely limited or throttled in very slim chassis.
  • Often more expensive than its 4-core counterparts without a proportional gain in everyday 'light' tasks.
  • Uses the older 14nm++ architecture, which lacks the efficiency gains found in newer 10nm or 7nm competitors.
  • Requires high peak power (up to 90W PL4) to reach maximum advertised boost speeds.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-10710U is a high-end, 10th Gen Comet Lake-U mobile processor featuring 6 cores and 12 threads with a 12 MB Intel Smart Cache. It operates at a 1.10 GHz base frequency and can boost up to 4.70 GHz, maintaining a low 15W TDP that is configurable up to 25W for enhanced performance in ultraportable laptops. Its primary strengths include exceptional multi-threaded performance for its class, making it ideal for demanding multitasking and content creation while remaining energy-efficient for long battery life. However, it is limited by an aging 14nm architecture, lacks support for the newer AVX-512 instruction set, and relies on the relatively weak integrated Intel UHD Graphics, which may struggle with modern gaming or heavy 3D workloads.

Compare Intel Core i7 10710U 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 10710U and other processors

No results found