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 i7-4960HQ review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£520PassMark multi-core score:6368N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1364TDP (Thermal design power):47 W

Intel Core i7-4960HQ Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

40%

4.5

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

â–¼Worse than 68% of processors
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

3.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 72%
?

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
â–¼
<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~ £520
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 i7-4960HQ

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

3.8

Architecture

10%

3.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

4.5
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

6.7
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
FCBGA1364
This processor uses the FCBGA1364 CPU socket, which is older than that of 87.8% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Chipset
QM87, HM87, HM86
This processor supports QM87, HM87, HM86 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 57.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
6,368
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 6,368 in PassMark, which is lower than 66% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 85% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to that of 9.8% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
This processor uses the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 64.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
40
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 40 GPU execution units, which is more than 80.3% of processors and equal to 1.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
200 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 200 MHz which is lower than that of 96.8% of processors and equal to that of 3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 51.6% of processors and equal to 4.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
47 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 47 W which is higher than that of 58.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
47 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 47 W which is higher than that of 58.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
58.75 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 58.75 W which is lower than that of 54% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i7-4960HQ vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.23x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,777.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,777.64 vs 340.075
  • 5.23x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,777.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,777.64 vs 340.075
  • 44.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,368 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,368 vs 11,469
  • 83.3% larger process node
    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
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 28.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,097 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,097 vs 1,535
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 18.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2089 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,089 vs 2,558
  • 2.08x more expensive
    Intel Core i7-4960HQ is more expensive than the average processor (£520 vs £250).
    £520 vs £250
  • 9.5% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7-4960HQ has worse value for money than the average processor (6.65 vs 7.3).
    6.65 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 7 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2013 vs 2020).
    September 2013
    2013 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1364 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1364 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 44.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,368 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,368 vs 11,469
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 28.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,097 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,097 vs 1,535
  • 18.3% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2089 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,089 vs 2,558
  • 30.3% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,629 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,629 vs 5,209
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    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
    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
  • 46.9% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (260 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    260 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 50% less L2 per 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Haswell vs Kaby Lake).
    Haswell vs Kaby Lake
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    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
    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
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • Less advanced foundry
    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
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    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
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    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), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-4960HQ

  • High-end performance for its generation, capable of handling demanding applications like video editing and rendering
  • Strong integrated graphics (Iris Pro Graphics 5200) with 128MB eDRAM, rivaling mid-range dedicated GPUs of its time
  • Supports up to 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, offering better multitasking and multi-threaded performance
  • Improved power efficiency and reduced heat dissipation (47W TDP) compared to previous generation Extreme mobile chips
  • Includes advanced features like AVX2 and FMA for increased performance in modern software applications

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-4960HQ

  • Significantly outperformed by modern, even entry-level, processors like 11th or 12th gen Core i3/i5 models
  • Subject to thermal throttling in thinner laptop designs, which can limit sustained performance under heavy loads
  • Outdated architecture (Haswell 22nm) lacks support for newer technologies like DDR4 or PCIe 4.0/5.0
  • Limited to 4 physical cores, which may struggle with highly parallel modern workloads compared to higher core-count CPUs
  • High initial cost at launch made it a poor value-for-money choice for mainstream users

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-4960HQ is a high-end, 4th generation quad-core mobile processor based on the 22nm Haswell architecture, released in late 2013. It features 4 cores and 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, a base clock speed of 2.6 GHz with a Max Turbo frequency of 3.8 GHz, and 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache. A standout characteristic is its integrated Iris Pro Graphics 5200 with 128 MB of dedicated eDRAM, which significantly boosts graphical performance compared to standard integrated units. Main pros include its robust multitasking capabilities and strong integrated graphics that rival entry-level dedicated GPUs. However, it carries a relatively high TDP of 47W for a mobile chip, leading to high power consumption and heat generation, and is now considered obsolete for modern, high-intensity gaming and software.

Compare Intel Core i7-4960HQ 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 i7-4960HQ and other processors

No results found