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 4700HQ Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£320PassMark benchmark result:5574N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1364TDP (Thermal design power):47 W

Intel Core i7 4700HQ Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.6

Overall score

Score
3.6/ 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
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

90%

3.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 96% of processors
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 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
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 95% 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~ £320

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 4700HQ

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 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
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

3.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

6.7

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

3.6
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 4700HQ 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
5.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Overall score

40%

8.8

Price

5.2
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
FCBGA1364
CPU socket
FCBGA1364
▼ Worse than 87% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1364 CPU socket, which is older than that of 87.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Chipset
QM87, HM87, HM86
Chipset
QM87, HM87, HM86
▼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports QM87, HM87, HM86 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 57.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% 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
4
N. of physical cores
4
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
▼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
▲ Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.4 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.4 GHz
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 83.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.4 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.4 GHz
▼ Worse than 68% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Semiconductor size
22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
▼ Worse than 85% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 10.1% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L
DDR memory version
DDR3L
▼ Worse than 84% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L, which is older than that of 84.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
▼ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.2% of processors and equal to 11.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% 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 HD Graphics 4600
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4600
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4600 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 65.7% of processors and equal to that in 2.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
20
Integrated GPU execution units
20
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 20 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 51.5% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
▲ Better than 69% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 53% of processors and equal to 4.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
47 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
47 W
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 47 W which is higher than that of 60.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
47 W
Base power (PL1)
47 W
▼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 47 W which is higher than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
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 4700HQ vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 47.3% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    571.09
    ▲ Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (571.1 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    571.09 vs 387.66
  • 47.3% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    571.09
    ▲ Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (571.1 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    571.09 vs 387.66
  • 79.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    997
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (997 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    997 vs 4,829
  • 20.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.4 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 29.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,773
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,773 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,773 vs 2,500
  • 46.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    261
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (261 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    261 vs 489
  • 57.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,196
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,196 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,196 vs 2,791
  • 47.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,574
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,574 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,574 vs 10,572.5
  • 32.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    997
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (997 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    997 vs 1,471
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 27.2% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 4700HQ has worse value for money than the average processor (5.16 vs 6.6).
    5.16 vs 6.56
  • 28% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 4700HQ is more expensive than the average processor (£320 vs £250).
    £320 vs £250
  • 7 years older release date
    Release date
    2013
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    June 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1364
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1364 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1364 vs FP4
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    ▼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    TPM 1.2
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2).
    TPM 1.2 vs PTT 2.0
  • 79.4% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    997
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (997 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    997 vs 4,829
  • 20.9% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.4 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 29.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,773
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,773 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,773 vs 2,500
  • 46.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    261
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (261 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    261 vs 489
  • 47.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,574
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,574 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,574 vs 10,572.5
  • 57.1% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,196
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,196 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,196 vs 2,791
  • 32.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    997
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (997 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    997 vs 1,471
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.4 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 68% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    5 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    5 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 83.3% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    22 nm
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 49.2% larger die size
    Die size
    264 mm²
    ▼ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (264 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    264 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Haswell
    ▼ Worse than 69% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    ▼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.4 billion
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Less advanced foundry
    Foundry
    Intel 22 nm
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • 44.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    25.6 GB/s
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 45.4% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    1,600 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1600 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L vs DDR4).
    DDR3L vs DDR4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16, x8/x8
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (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.

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

B
browser.geekbench.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4700HQ Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4700HQ @ 2.40GHz - CPU Benchmarks
T
techspot.com
17/10/2014
Summary of the review
Maingear Pulse 15 Gaming Laptop Review
T
techspot.com
27/08/2014
Summary of the review
MSI GS70 Stealth Pro Gaming Laptop Review
N
notebookcheck.com
17/07/2013
Summary of the review
Asus G750 Series - Notebookcheck.net External Reviews
(Translated)Show original
F
futurezone.at
17/08/2013
Summary of the review
Razer Blade Pro Review: A Slim Gaming Laptop
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
21/06/2014
Summary of the review
MSI GS60 3K Edition Review
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
30/08/2013
Summary of the review
User Review - Asus N550JV-CN088H", "Reader Article - Asus N550JV-CN088H
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
14/08/2013
Summary of the review
Asus G750JH-T4080H Review
(Translated)Show original
P
pcmasters.de
19/11/2013
Summary of the review
ASUS ROG G750JX 17.3" Gaming Laptop Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
20/06/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4700HQ | LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
T
techstation.it
15/05/2014
Summary of the review
MSI AG270 All-in-One Review
(Translated)Show original
T
techstation.it
12/05/2014
Summary of the review
MSI GS60 2PE Ghost Pro Laptop: Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-4700HQ | LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 4700HQ

  • Reliable multi-threaded performance for its era, handling up to 8 threads simultaneously via Hyper-Threading.
  • Capable of basic modern multitasking, such as handling 30+ browser tabs and 4K video playback concurrently.
  • Efficient for older workstation tasks like 3D rendering and modeling when compared to contemporary dual-core chips.
  • Includes hardware virtualization (VT-d) support, improving performance for virtual machine environments.
  • Still functional for light programming, office work, and basic video editing even years after its release.

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 4700HQ

  • Prone to high operating temperatures (often reaching 90°C–100°C under load), leading to thermal throttling.
  • Significantly outperformed by modern mobile and desktop CPUs, which can be 2 to 3 times faster.
  • Struggles with modern, CPU-intensive gaming and emulation (e.g., low FPS in demanding emulators like Cemu).
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking for users seeking additional performance.
  • Soldered BGA design means the processor is not user-replaceable or upgradable in most laptops.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-4700HQ is a high-end, 4th-generation quad-core mobile processor based on the 22nm Haswell architecture, featuring a 2.4 GHz base frequency and a 3.4 GHz turbo boost. It supports 8 threads through Hyper-Threading and includes 6 MB of L3 cache, an integrated HD Graphics 4600 GPU (up to 1200 MHz), and a 47W TDP. Its main pros include strong multi-threaded performance for demanding tasks like rendering and advanced features like AVX2 and VT-d virtualization support. However, its high power consumption often leads to significant heat and thermal throttling in thinner laptops, and because it uses a BGA1364 socket, it is soldered to the motherboard and cannot be upgraded.

Compare Intel Core i7 4700HQ 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 4700HQ and other processors

No results found