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 i7-1260P review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£380PassMark multi-core score:16566N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

Intel Core i7-1260P Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.2/10

Overall score

Score
7.2/ 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–² Better than 66% of models
Score components

40%

7.1

Technical score

25%

7.1

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–²Better than 66% of processors
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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–² Better than 65% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

â–²Better than 65%
7.1

Technical score

Technical score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 70% of models
Score components

60%

7.0

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 70%
7.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.1/ 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 61% of models

7.1

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

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
â–¼Worse than 61%
?

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~ £380
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 i7-1260P

Based on 3 · 3

Reviewers agree single-core speed feels snappy, but video exports are frustratingly slow.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7-1260P

Technical score
Technical score
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 70% of models
Score components:

60%

7.0

Performance

18%

7.1

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated graphics

7.1
Reviews score
7.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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–² Better than 65% of models
Score components:

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.6
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
FCBGA1744
This processor uses the FCBGA1744 CPU socket, which is older than that of 73.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
Chipset
Z690, H670, B660, H610
This processor supports Z690, H670, B660, H610 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 81.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is broader support than 49.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
12
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 12 CPU cores, which is more than 79.9% of processors and equal to 5.7% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% 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 2.1 GHz & 8x 1.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.1 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz which is higher than that of 65.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
16,566
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 16,566 in PassMark, which is higher than 61.3% 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 7
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
L3 cache
18 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 18 MB which is larger than that of 74.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
L2 cache
9 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 9 MB which is larger than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
L1 cache
?
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 95.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
5,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 5,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 70.6% of processors and equal to 6.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to 6.7% 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
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% 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)
64 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 64 W which is lower than that of 49.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% 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: 1.2 W
Show more

Intel Core i7-1260P vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 83% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,532 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,532 vs 5,209
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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.
    E-core module: 2 MB shared by 4 cores
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 3x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (9 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    9 MB vs 3 MB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 6.0% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.1/ 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 61% of models

    7.1

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

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    7.1 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
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 83% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (9,532 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    9,532 vs 5,209
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 26% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,222 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,222 vs 2,558
  • 44.4% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (16,566 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    16,566 vs 11,469
  • 33.9% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2056 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,056 vs 1,535
  • 43.2% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (4,017 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    4,017 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.1 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.1 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    6 vs 4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Alder Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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.
    E-core module: 2 MB shared by 4 cores
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 3x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (9 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    9 MB vs 3 MB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (18 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    18 MB vs 9 MB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 62.5% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (5,200 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    5,200 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
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 22.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (217 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    217 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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, 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, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 52% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-1260P is more expensive than the average processor (£380 vs £250).
    £380 vs £250
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (21 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    21 vs 28
  • 52% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-1260P is more expensive than the average processor (£380 vs £250).
    £380 vs £250
  • 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, 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, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, 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 (FCBGA1744 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1744 vs FP5
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (21 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    21 vs 28
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 22.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (217 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    217 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Video reviews

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

9.0
TechTablets
≈ estimated
02/09/2022
Hands-on review · build, screen, benchmarks and battery tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1260P is a solid business laptop with excellent build and screen, held back by few ports and limited graphics performance.
8.0
Ben G Kaiser
≈ estimated
28/08/2022
Buying guide · benchmarks and creator app tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1260P handles photo, design and 4K editing well, but skip the dedicated GPU unless you game.
8.0
Ben G Kaiser
≈ estimated
10/08/2022
Comparison · benchmarks and creative app tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1260P gives creators the best raw performance in the right laptop, but battery life trails Ryzen.
6.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
12/06/2022
Comparison · CPU benchmarks, GPU, and battery tests
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1260P has strong single-thread speed and a big uplift, but Ryzen is the better all-rounder.
Shop video
Not graded
Shop video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
05/05/2022
Lab benchmark · Mobile processor
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1260P nearly matches the Ryzen 9 5900HS in multi-core tests, a big jump from Tiger Lake, though Apple's M1 chips draw less power.
6.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
14/06/2022
Lab test · Laptop CPU comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1260P is stronger for single-task speed, Office work and AI photo tools, but the Ryzen 7 6800U wins most gaming and video tests.
7.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
04/05/2022
Benchmark review · Alder Lake laptop
Verdict
Intel Core i7-1260P nearly matches the Ryzen 9 5900HS in multi-core tests, a big step up from Tiger Lake, though Apple's M1 chips use less power.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-1260P

  • Significantly improved multi-core performance compared to previous 11th Gen processors
  • Snappy and responsive user experience in Windows 11 and daily multitasking
  • Capable of handling sustained multi-threaded workloads like programming and creative tasks
  • Punchy CPU performance that can 'punch above its weight' in ultraportable laptop designs
  • Good support for AI-accelerated workloads due to built-in hardware acceleration
  • Reliable for professional use-cases like 4K video editing and CAD when paired with adequate cooling

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-1260P

  • High power consumption compared to competitors, leading to poor energy efficiency
  • Prone to running hot, which often triggers thermal throttling in thin-and-light chassis
  • Minimal improvements in integrated GPU performance compared to the previous generation
  • Battery life can be disappointing, often failing to reach manufacturer-claimed durations during heavy use
  • Heavily dependent on laptop cooling solutions and power limits to reach its full performance potential
  • Can be 'overkill' for basic web browsing or light tasks, leading to unnecessary battery drain

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-1260P is a 12th Gen Alder Lake-P processor designed for thin-and-light laptops, featuring a hybrid architecture with 12 cores (4 Performance and 8 Efficient) and 16 threads. It operates with a base power of 28W, can boost up to 4.70 GHz, and includes 18MB of Intel Smart Cache alongside integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. Main pros include significantly improved multi-threaded performance over previous generations, support for high-speed LPDDR5-5200 memory, and AI acceleration through DL Boost. Notable cons include high energy consumption under heavy loads compared to AMD's Ryzen 5000 series, a tendency to run hot in slim chassis, and a dependence on robust cooling to maintain its maximum 64W turbo power levels.

Compare Intel Core i7-1260P 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 i7-1260P and other processors

No results found