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

Intel Core i7 13700HX Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£310PassMark benchmark result:31902N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1964TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

Intel Core i7 13700HX Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.4

Overall score

Score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

90%

8.4

Technical score

10%

?

User score

★Better than 92% of processors
8.4

Technical score

Technical score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

60%

8.9

Performance

18%

7.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated Graphics

★Better than 92% of processors
?

User score

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

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £310

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 13700HX

Technical score
Technical score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components:

60%

8.9

Performance

18%

7.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.3

Power & Thermal

4%

8.0

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated Graphics

8.4
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i7 13700HX has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
8.5/ 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 94% of models
Score components:

60%

8.4

Overall score

40%

8.9

Price

8.5
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1964
CPU socket
FCBGA1964
▼ Worse than 68% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1964 CPU socket, which is older than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
WM790, HM770
Chipset
WM790, HM770
▼ Worse than 60% of models
This processor supports WM790, HM770 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 59.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
N. of physical cores
16
★ Better than 91% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 91.5% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
CPU threads
24
CPU threads
24
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 24 CPU threads, which is more than 90.3% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
Threads per core
?
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 80.3% of processors and equal to that of 5.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.1 GHz & 8x 1.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.1 GHz & 8x 1.5 GHz
▲ Better than 82% of models
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.1 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz which is higher than that of 82.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
10 nm
Semiconductor size
10 nm
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 10 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 52.4% of processors and equal to that of 19.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 7
Foundry
Intel 7
▲ Better than 66% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 7 foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 66.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.9% of processors.
L3 cache
30 MB
L3 cache
30 MB
▲ Better than 88% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 30 MB which is larger than that of 88.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
L2 cache
24 MB
L2 cache
24 MB
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
L1 cache
896 KB
L1 cache
896 KB
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 896 KB which is larger than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5
▲ Better than 79% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5, which is newer than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,800 MHz
▲ Better than 67% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,800 MHz, which is higher than that of 66.7% of processors and equal to 5.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-4800 MHz
▲ Better than 64% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-4800 MHz, which is higher than that of 64% of processors and equal to 6.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
Maximum memory capacity
192 GB
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 192 GB of memory, which is more than 83.4% of processors and equal to 6% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 770
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 770
▲ Better than 57% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 770 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 56.9% of processors and equal to that in 4.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Integrated GPU execution units
32
▲ Better than 71% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.9% of processors and equal to 9.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 52.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
▼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Base power (PL1)
55 W
▼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 64% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
157 W
Boost power (PL2)
157 W
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 157 W which is higher than that of 87.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
▼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i7 13700HX vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.02x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    31,902
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,902 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,902 vs 10,572.5
  • 2.86x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    13,825
    ▲ Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,825 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,825 vs 4,829
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.99x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    8,342
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,342 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,342 vs 2,791
  • 16 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    24
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 52.1% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,802
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,802 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,802 vs 2,500
  • 72.3% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,534
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,534 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,534 vs 1,471
  • 9.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    24 MB
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    24 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 29.7% better value for money
    Intel Core i7 13700HX has better value for money than the average processor (8.51 vs 6.6).
    8.51 vs 6.56
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP
    ★ Better than 100% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TDT, TME, TME-MK, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, VAES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
  • 3 years newer release date
    Release date
    2023
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    January 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 3.02x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    31,902
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,902 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,902 vs 10,572.5
  • 2.86x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    13,825
    ▲ Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (13,825 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    13,825 vs 4,829
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.99x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    8,342
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (8,342 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    8,342 vs 2,791
  • 16 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    24
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 52.1% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,802
    ▲ Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,802 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,802 vs 2,500
  • 72.3% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,534
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,534 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,534 vs 1,471
  • 16.3% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.0 GHz
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.0 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 47.9% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    723
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (723 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    723 vs 489
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    8 x 2.1 GHz & 8 x 1.5 GHz
    ▲ Better than 82% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.1 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    8x2.1 GHz & 8x1.5 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 2 wider front-end design
    Front-end width
    6
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <2 – >7
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    P-core 6, E-core 3
    6 vs 4
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Intel Turbo Boost Max 3
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • 9.6x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    24 MB
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    24 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raptor Lake
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Raptor Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 4x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    2 MB/core
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    E-core module: 4 MB shared
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 3.75x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    30 MB
    ▲ Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (30 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    30 MB vs 8 MB
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    P-cores + E-cores
  • 2.33x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    896 KB
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (896 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    896 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 7
    ▲ Better than 66% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 7 vs Intel 14 nm
  • 16.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    10 nm
    ▲ Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (10 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    10 nm vs 12 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    5.0
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 3x more memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    192 GB
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (192 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    192 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/DDR5
    ▲ Better than 79% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    20
    ▲ Better than 58% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 vs 16
  • 67.7% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    76.8 GB/s
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (76.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    76.8 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • 63.7% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,800 MHz
    ▲ Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4800 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,800 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.62x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    157 W
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (157 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    157 W vs 60 W
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 45.2% larger die size
    Die size
    257 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 28.5% slower Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    277.32
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (277.3 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    277.32 vs 387.66
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 24% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 13700HX is more expensive than the average processor (£310 vs £250).
    £310 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 28.5% slower Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    277.32
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (277.3 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    277.32 vs 387.66
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    21
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    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
  • 17% slower classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    277.32
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (277.3 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    277.32 vs 334.1
  • 45.2% larger die size
    Die size
    257 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (257 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    257 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.62x higher boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    157 W
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (157 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    157 W vs 60 W
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    55 W
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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

Video reviews

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

Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 13700HX

  • High-end performance that matches or exceeds previous-gen flagships like the i9-12900HX
  • Excellent for intensive multitasking, 3D rendering, and gaming with 16 cores and 24 threads
  • Supports overclocking and undervolting to optimize performance or heat
  • Great value for money compared to more expensive i9 variants while offering similar power
  • Strong single-core performance beneficial for gaming and creative apps like Photoshop

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 13700HX

  • High power consumption leads to significantly reduced battery life compared to 'H' series models
  • Runs very hot, often hitting 98°C–100°C under heavy load, which can lead to thermal throttling
  • Requires high-end laptop cooling solutions to maintain peak performance without noise
  • Potential stability issues and occasional crashes reported in specific gaming workloads
  • Higher idle power usage compared to more efficient mobile-focused processors

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-13700HX is a high-end mobile processor from the 13th Gen Raptor Lake-HX series, featuring a hybrid architecture with 16 cores (8 performance cores and 8 efficient cores) and 24 threads. It operates at a base power of 55W, reaching a max turbo frequency of 5.0 GHz with a substantial 30MB L3 cache and support for up to 128GB of DDR5-4800 or DDR4-3200 memory. Its main pros include desktop-class performance suitable for intensive gaming and professional workstations, alongside support for advanced technologies like PCIe 5.0 and ECC memory. However, its significant power draw—peaking at 157W—frequently leads to high operating temperatures and thermal throttling in laptops without premium cooling solutions, while also negatively impacting battery life.

Compare Intel Core i7 13700HX 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 13700HX and other processors

No results found