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 i7-1165G7 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£360PassMark multi-core score:9810N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1449TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core i7-1165G7 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.

6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 51% of models
Score components

40%

5.6

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

▲Better than 51% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

▼Worse than 51%
5.6

Technical score

Technical score
5.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 53% of models
Score components

60%

4.6

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

6.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 53%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 55% of models

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each 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.
▲Better 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 i7-1165G7

Based on 3 · 6

Reviewers praise its quick single-core speed and capable integrated graphics, but multi-core performance lags and gaming views are split.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7-1165G7

Technical score
Technical score
5.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 53% of models
Score components:

60%

4.6

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

6.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.6

Integrated graphics

5.6
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

7.3
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
FCBGA1449
This processor uses the FCBGA1449 CPU socket, which is older than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
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
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is broader support than 66.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% 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
4.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 63.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
9,810
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 9,810 in PassMark, which is lower than 53.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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 SuperFin
This processor is built on the Intel 10 nm SuperFin foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 53% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% of processors.
L3 cache
12 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
L2 cache
5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 5 MB which is larger than that of 62.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% 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
What reviewers say
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4X, which is newer than that of 61.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
?
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
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
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Xe Graphics
This processor uses the Intel Iris Xe Graphics integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 77.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
96
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 96 GPU execution units, which is more than 94.8% of processors and equal to 4.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 85.4% of processors and equal to 5.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
12 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 12 W which is lower than that of 94.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
52 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 52 W which is lower than that of 69.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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 i7-1165G7 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 73.3% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    12 W vs 45 W
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 55% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each 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
  • 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 55% of models

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    3 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each 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
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 14.5% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (561 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    561 vs 490
  • 11.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,713 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,713 vs 1,535
  • 6.6% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,728 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,728 vs 2,558
  • 2.5x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Tiger Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 66.7% larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    5 MB vs 3 MB
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 10 nm SuperFin vs Intel 14 nm
  • 18.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (144 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    144 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 4x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (96 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    96 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
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Iris Xe Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 73.3% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (12 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    12 W vs 45 W
  • 18.8% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (52 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    52 W vs 64 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 20.3% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,234 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,234 vs 2,804.5
  • 14.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,810 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    9,810 vs 11,469
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • 44% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-1165G7 is more expensive than the average processor (£360 vs £250).
    £360 vs £250
  • 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
  • 44% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-1165G7 is more expensive than the average processor (£360 vs £250).
    £360 vs £250
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • 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
  • 20.3% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,234 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,234 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 14.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,810 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    9,810 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,844 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,844 vs 5,209
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4

Video reviews

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

7.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
07/12/2020
Benchmark review · CPU, gaming and AMD Ryzen comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1165G7 is strong at single-thread work and graphics but weak in multi-core, so the right choice depends on how you use it.
8.0
Tech Critter
≈ estimated
07/11/2020
Hands-on comparison · same chip at 15W and 28W
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1165G7 at 28W has more CPU headroom, so mixed CPU and GPU workloads run better.
9.0
Tech Critter
≈ estimated
26/10/2020
Performance review · CPU benchmarks, gaming and temperature tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1165G7 has strong single-core speed and integrated graphics for a thin laptop, but cooling holds it back.
8.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
05/02/2021
Comparison · eGPU gaming and benchmark tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1165G7 offers clear CPU gains over the 10th gen chip, around 10 percent faster in games, but not a huge jump.
8.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
05/02/2021
Comparison with previous generation · eGPU gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1165G7's 11th-gen gains come from the processor, which often bottlenecks eGPU setups.
8.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
08/01/2021
Comparison with previous generation · benchmarks and games
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1165G7 clearly improves on Ice Lake, but how much you gain depends on your workload.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
techspot.com
✓ explicit
07/12/2020
Multi-laptop test · Ultraportable chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1165G7 is the fastest mobile chip for single-core work in this review, but it can't keep up with AMD's six- and eight-core chips on multi-core tests.
6.0
tech.hindustantimes.com
≈ estimated
27/09/2021
Hands-on test · Convertible laptop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1165G7 in the HP Envy X360 handles office work, browsing and photo editing well, but trails AMD's Ryzen 7 4700U in multi-core tasks like Blender.
9.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
≈ estimated
13/02/2021
Benchmark test · Thin laptop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-1165G7 is fast in single-core tasks and has strong built-in graphics, but it trails in multi-core work in the thin test laptop.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-1165G7

  • Strong single-core performance that excels in productivity tasks like web browsing, Photoshop, and Office applications
  • Significant leap in integrated graphics with Intel Iris Xe, outperforming previous generations and competing well with entry-level discrete GPUs
  • Impressive hardware acceleration for video editing and rendering tasks, particularly in software like Premiere and DaVinci
  • High efficiency in ultra-light laptops, offering a strong performance-to-portability ratio for daily workloads
  • Capable of playing older AAA titles and popular esports games like CS:GO and Overwatch at playable frame rates

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-1165G7

  • Limited to only 4 cores and 8 threads, which lags behind competitors with higher core counts in heavy multi-threaded workloads
  • Performance is highly dependent on the laptop's thermal design and power limit (TDP), leading to inconsistent results across different devices
  • Integrated GPU performance is significantly hampered when paired with slower DDR4 memory instead of faster LPDDR4X
  • Frequent thermal throttling in thin-and-light chassis, with temperatures sometimes reaching over 80°C during intensive tasks
  • Confusing naming scheme makes it difficult for average consumers to distinguish between different performance tiers

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-1165G7 is a high-end, 11th-generation 'Tiger Lake' mobile processor built on a 10nm SuperFin process, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 12MB L3 cache. It operates at a base frequency of 2.8GHz (at 28W TDP) with a maximum turbo boost of 4.7GHz, and it includes integrated Intel Iris Xe graphics with 96 execution units. Its main advantages include exceptional single-core performance for productivity tasks, support for PCIe 4.0 and fast LPDDR4x-4267 memory, and significantly improved integrated graphics compared to previous generations. However, its primary drawbacks are the limited 4-core count, which trails behind competitors in heavy multi-threaded workloads, and performance that is highly dependent on the laptop's thermal cooling and configured power limits (ranging from 12W to 28W).

Compare Intel Core i7-1165G7 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 i7-1165G7 and other processors

No results found