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 i7-1195G7 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£280PassMark multi-core score:10395N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1449TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core i7-1195G7 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 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 57% of models
Score components

40%

6.0

Technical score

25%

6.0

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 57% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 60%
6.0

Technical score

Technical score
6.0/ 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–² Better than 53% of models
Score components

60%

5.3

Performance

18%

6.7

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 53%
6.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 69% of models

6.0

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, with a printed score. 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–¼Worse than 69%
?

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~ £280
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 i7-1195G7

Technical score
Technical score
6.0/ 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–² Better than 53% of models
Score components:

60%

5.3

Performance

18%

6.7

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

8.8

Integrated graphics

6.0
Reviews score
6.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

7.2
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, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is broader support than 52.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% 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
5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% 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
10,395
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 10,395 in PassMark, which is lower than 52.2% 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 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
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
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
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 Xe Graphics 96EU
This processor uses the Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 81% of processors and equal to that in 2.7% 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), VP8 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 98.9% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
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)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% 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.
cTDP: 28 W
Show more

Intel Core i7-1195G7 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 15.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,949 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,949 vs 2,558
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, VAES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, VAES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 15.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,949 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,949 vs 2,558
  • 16.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,790 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,790 vs 1,535
  • 14.9% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (563 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    563 vs 490
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 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
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 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
  • 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
  • 10.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 69% of models

    6.0

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, with a printed score. 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.
    6.0 vs 6.7
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 9.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (10,395 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    10,395 vs 11,469
  • 10.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.0/ 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–¼ Worse than 69% of models

    6.0

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, with a printed score. 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.
    6.0 vs 6.7
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1449 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1449 vs FP5
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 9.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (10,395 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    10,395 vs 11,469

Video reviews

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

6.0
Sirberks
≈ estimated
23/09/2021
Benchmark test · single-core score with turbo on and off
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1195G7 shows no real benchmark gain from turbo in this handheld, and its fan gets louder.
9.0
Sirberks
≈ estimated
09/09/2021
Benchmark test · Cinebench single-core run
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1195G7 tops its single-core ranking even with turbo mode off.
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
hothardware.com
✓ explicit
01/10/2021
Benchmark review · Thin-and-light laptop
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1195G7 in the MSI Prestige 14 EVO leads single-core tests, but its fans run hard under sustained loads.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-1195G7

  • Exceptional single-core performance, rivaling some desktop processors in benchmarks
  • Snappy and responsive for everyday 'bursty' tasks like photo editing and web browsing
  • Capable integrated Iris Xe graphics suitable for light gaming and media work
  • High boost clock speeds of up to 5.0 GHz provide a noticeable edge over predecessor models
  • Strong AI acceleration performance specifically designed for thin and light laptops

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-1195G7

  • High power consumption, especially when pushed to peak turbo boost frequencies
  • Prone to thermal throttling in slim laptop designs during sustained heavy workloads
  • Limited multi-threaded performance gains compared to the Core i7-1185G7 despite higher clock speeds
  • Only 4 physical cores, which can be a bottleneck for heavy multi-tasking or modern productivity
  • Significant impact on battery life when running at maximum performance profiles

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-1195G7 is a high-end quad-core mobile processor from the Tiger Lake-UP3 family, built on a 10nm SuperFin process and designed specifically for ultra-thin laptops. It features 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 12MB Intel Smart Cache, distinguished as the first ultra-low power chip to reach a maximum single-core turbo frequency of 5.0GHz with a base clock of 2.9GHz. Key advantages include its powerful integrated Intel Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, support for high-speed LPDDR4x-4266 RAM, and PCIe 4.0 compatibility for faster data transfer. However, its performance is highly dependent on a configurable TDP that ranges between 12W and 28W, often leading to significant thermal throttling or reduced battery life in thin laptop chassis when running at peak speeds.

Compare Intel Core i7-1195G7 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 i7-1195G7 and other processors

No results found