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 i7-13800H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£380PassMark multi-core score:26224N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:5.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1744TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i7-13800H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.5/10

Overall score

Score
7.5/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 81% of models
Score components

40%

7.9

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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 81% of processors
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 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 77% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

▲Better than 77%
7.9

Technical score

Technical score
7.9/ 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 85% of models
Score components

60%

8.2

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

▲Better than 85%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7-13800H

Technical score
Technical score
7.9/ 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 85% of models
Score components:

60%

8.2

Performance

18%

7.4

Architecture

10%

8.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

5.9

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

7.9
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 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 77% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.8
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
?
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, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 78.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
14
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 14 CPU cores, which is more than 85.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
20
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 84.3% of processors and equal to 5% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.2 GHz which is higher than that of 88.9% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.5 GHz & 8x 1.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.5 GHz & 8x1.8 GHz which is higher than that of 82.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
26,224
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 26,224 in PassMark, which is higher than 81.4% 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
24 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 80.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
L2 cache
11.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 11.5 MB which is larger than that of 80.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
L1 cache
1,248 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,248 KB which is larger than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 97.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
96 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 96 GB of memory, which is more than 53.4% of processors and equal to 5.8% 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), 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)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 11% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
115 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 115 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.6% 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
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i7-13800H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.47x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,876 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,876 vs 5,209
  • 2.29x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,224 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,224 vs 11,469
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 70.3% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,614 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,614 vs 1,535
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 58.4% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (776 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    776 vs 490
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    January 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 2.47x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,876 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,876 vs 5,209
  • 2.29x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (26,224 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    26,224 vs 11,469
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 70.3% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,614 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,614 vs 1,535
  • 18.2% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 58.4% higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (776 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    776 vs 490
  • 37.7% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,523 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,523 vs 2,558
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.5 GHz & 8x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x2.5 GHz & 8x1.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 27.3% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (3,569 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    3,569 vs 2,804.5
  • 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.
    P-core 6, E-core 3
    6 vs 4
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Boost Max 3
    3 vs 2
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    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
    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.
    2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 3.83x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (11.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    11.5 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.
  • 3.25x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1,248 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,248 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.67x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    24 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
  • 12 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (28 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    28 vs 16
  • 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/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    DDR4/DDR5/LPDDR4X/LPDDR5/LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 91% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 50% more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (96 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    96 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 45.2% larger die size
    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
  • 79.7% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    115 W vs 64 W
  • 43.9% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (190.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    190.85 vs 340.075
  • 52% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-13800H 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
  • 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
  • 52% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-13800H 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, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES 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
  • 43.9% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (190.9 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    190.85 vs 340.075
  • 45.2% larger die size
    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
  • 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.
  • 79.7% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (115 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    115 W vs 64 W

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-13800H

  • High core count (14 cores/20 threads) provides excellent multitasking and multi-threaded performance.
  • Strong gaming capabilities, often delivering high frame rates (up to 240fps in some titles) when paired with a good GPU.
  • Well-suited for demanding professional tasks like video editing, 3D design, and scientific calculations.
  • Integrated Iris Xe Graphics (96EU) is capable enough to handle most non-gaming media tasks and 4K smooth playback.
  • Supports modern standards including PCIe 5.0 and DDR5-5200 memory for future-proofing.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-13800H

  • High power consumption and 'power hungry' nature can lead to heavy battery drain in portable use.
  • Prone to high operating temperatures (hitting up to 100°C), which can trigger thermal throttling during intense workloads.
  • Performance may be artificially limited to 50W in certain 'Best Efficiency' system power modes on some laptop models.
  • Locked multiplier limits potential for manual overclocking.
  • Laptops featuring this processor are often positioned at a higher price point compared to similar 'H' series alternatives.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-13800H is a high-end mobile processor from the Raptor Lake-H series featuring a hybrid architecture with 14 cores (6 Performance and 8 Efficient) and 20 threads, capable of reaching a max turbo frequency of 5.2 GHz. Built on the Intel 7 process, it includes 24 MB of Smart Cache, supports DDR5-5200 memory, and integrates Iris Xe graphics with 96 execution units. Its main advantages include exceptional multitasking performance for gaming and content creation, support for the full vPro Enterprise management suite, and improved power efficiency over previous generations. However, it can face performance throttling under sustained high loads due to thermal limitations in slim laptops and lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

Compare Intel Core i7-13800H 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 i7-13800H and other processors

No results found