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 i7-12800HX review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£390PassMark multi-core score:31221N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1964TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

Intel Core i7-12800HX Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 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 86% of models
Score components

40%

8.0

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 86% of processors
7.9

Value for money

Value for money
7.9/ 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
▲ Better than 81% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

▲Better than 81%
8.0

Technical score

Technical score
8.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 86% of models
Score components

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

7.5

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 86%
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%

8.0

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 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~ £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 i7-12800HX

Technical score
Technical score
8.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

7.5

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

8.0
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.9/ 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
▲ Better than 81% of models
Score components:

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.9
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
FCBGA1964
This processor uses the FCBGA1964 CPU socket, which is older than that of 69.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Chipset
HM670, WM690
This processor supports HM670, WM690 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 62.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA instruction sets, which is narrower support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
24
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 24 CPU threads, which is more than 89.7% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.0 GHz & 8x 1.5 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.0 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz which is higher than that of 80.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
31,221
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 31,221 in PassMark, which is higher than 87.2% 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 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
25 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 25 MB which is larger than that of 86.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
L2 cache
14 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 14 MB which is larger than that of 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.3% of processors.
L1 cache
1,408 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,408 KB which is larger than that of 92.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 77.1% of processors and equal to that of 10.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 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
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 32EU
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 32EU integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 60.4% of processors and equal to that in 0.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 97.2% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
157 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 157 W which is higher than that of 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% 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
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i7-12800HX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.67x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,929 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,929 vs 5,209
  • 2.72x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,221 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,221 vs 11,469
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 44.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,685 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,685 vs 2,558
  • 59.9% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,454 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,454 vs 1,535
  • 4.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    14 MB vs 3 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • 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%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 6.7
  • 8.9% better value for money
    Intel Core i7-12800HX has better value for money than the average processor (7.93 vs 7.3).
    7.93 vs 7.29
  • 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.
  • 2.67x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,929 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,929 vs 5,209
  • 2.72x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,221 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,221 vs 11,469
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 44.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,685 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,685 vs 2,558
  • 59.9% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,454 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,454 vs 1,535
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 38% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (676 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    676 vs 490
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x2.0 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 9.1% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.4 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
  • 2x higher bus transfer rate
    This processor has a higher bus transfer rate than the average processor (16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    16 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3
    3 vs 2
  • 4.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (14 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    14 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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 cluster: 2 MB shared
    1.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 3.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,408 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,408 KB vs 384 KB
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 2.78x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (25 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    25 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 63.8% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 90.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (39.5 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    39.5 vs 398.015
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.45x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (157 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    157 W vs 64 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, 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, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 21.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 33.9% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (224.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    224.65 vs 340.075
  • 56% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-12800HX is more expensive than the average processor (£390 vs £250).
    £390 vs £250
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 56% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-12800HX is more expensive than the average processor (£390 vs £250).
    £390 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, AVX2, 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, AVX2, 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 (FCBGA1964 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1964 vs FP5
  • 90.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (39.5 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    39.5 vs 398.015
  • 33.9% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (224.7 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    224.65 vs 340.075
  • 21.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (215 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    215 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 15.5% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.6 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.563 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.45x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (157 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    157 W vs 64 W
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
pcworld.com
≈ estimated
01/06/2022
Hands-on preview · Performance laptop chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-12800HX is a desktop-class laptop chip that renders and encodes far faster than rivals, but it draws much more power and suits large, non-portable machines.
8.8
notebookcheck.nl
✓ explicit
14/07/2022
Lab test · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-12800HX leads content creation tests in the MSI GE67 HX, but its score falls when the laptop runs in MSHybrid mode.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-12800HX

  • Exceptional multi-threaded performance, often outperforming even higher-tier mobile CPUs like the i9-12900HK in rendering and encoding tasks
  • Effective 'desktop replacement' power, utilizing 16 cores (8P + 8E) for workstation-level workloads
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for easy overclocking on supported laptop platforms
  • Support for modern standards including PCIe Gen 5 and high-speed DDR5 memory up to 4800 MHz
  • Strong performance for CPU-intensive gaming titles, showing slight improvements over standard mobile variants

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-12800HX

  • Extremely high power consumption, with peak turbo power reaching up to 157W–180W
  • Poor battery life, typically lasting only a few hours even during light tasks
  • Significant performance throttling when running on battery compared to being plugged in
  • Requires robust cooling solutions; some users report immediate thermal throttling issues on specific laptop models
  • Marginal gaming performance gains over the more power-efficient i7-12700H in many scenarios

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-12800HX is a high-end mobile processor from the Alder Lake-HX series, featuring a hybrid architecture with 16 cores (8 Performance and 8 Efficient) and 24 threads. Built on the 10nm 'Intel 7' process, it offers a base clock of 2.0 GHz with a max turbo frequency of 4.8 GHz, 25 MB of L3 cache, and support for DDR5-4800 or DDR4-3200 memory. Its main advantages include desktop-class multi-threaded performance suitable for intensive rendering and gaming, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and support for advanced PCIe 5.0 connectivity. However, its high power consumption (base 55W, up to 157W turbo) leads to significant heat generation, necessitating robust laptop cooling solutions to prevent thermal throttling, and it lacks enterprise-focused vPro or ECC memory support found in related models.

Compare Intel Core i7-12800HX 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 i7-12800HX and other processors

No results found