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 6600U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£340PassMark benchmark result:3402N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.4 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1356TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i7 6600U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.7

Overall score

Score
3.7/ 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 94% of models
Score components

90%

3.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 94% of processors
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

4.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 93% 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~ £340

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 6600U

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

60%

2.6

Performance

18%

4.8

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.5

Integrated Graphics

3.7
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 6600U 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%

3.7

Overall score

40%

8.7

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
FCBGA1356
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
▼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1356 CPU socket, which is older than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 100 Series, Intel 200 Series
Chipset
Intel 100 Series, Intel 200 Series
▲ Better than 50% of models
This processor supports Intel 100 Series, Intel 200 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 50% 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
2
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% 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
2x 2.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.6 GHz
▼ Worse than 87% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
▼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3, which is older than that of 74.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 75.5% of processors and equal to 8.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to 5.8% of processors.
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 520
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 520
▼ Worse than 81% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 520 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 80.8% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
▲ Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
▲ Better than 71% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 71% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
▲ Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
▲ Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
▲ Better than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 83% of processors and equal to that of 8% 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
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i7 6600U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.81x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,088.69
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,88.7 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,088.69 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    99 mm²
    ▲ Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    99 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard
    ▼ Worse than 55% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard
    ▼ Worse than 55% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 2.81x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,088.69
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,88.7 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,088.69 vs 387.66
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    99 mm²
    ▲ Better than 89% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    99 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    ▲ Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 79.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    983
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (983 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    983 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 67.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,402
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,402 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,402 vs 10,572.5
  • 73.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    741
    ▼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (741 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    741 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 29.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,767
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,767 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,767 vs 2,500
  • 33.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    983
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (983 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    983 vs 1,471
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 25.4% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 6600U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.23 vs 6.6).
    5.23 vs 6.56
  • 36% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 6600U is more expensive than the average processor (£340 vs £250).
    £340 vs £250
  • 5 years older release date
    Release date
    2015
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    September 2015
    2015 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1356
    ▼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1356 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1356 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
  • 79.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    983
    ▼ Worse than 86% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (983 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    983 vs 4,829
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    ▼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 67.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,402
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,402 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,402 vs 10,572.5
  • 73.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    741
    ▼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (741 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    741 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 29.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,767
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,767 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,767 vs 2,500
  • 33.2% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    983
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (983 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    983 vs 1,471
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.6 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 87% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 18.2% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    400
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (400 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    400 vs 489
  • 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
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 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
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Skylake
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
    Skylake vs Kaby Lake
  • 25.5% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    34.1 GB/s
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 27.3% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,133 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2133 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2133 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,133 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 520
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 520 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 520 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
    ▲ Better than 71% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (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), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)

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
01/10/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6600U Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
26/10/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6600U - CPU UserBenchmarks
C
cpubenchmark.net
01/09/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6600U @ 2.60GHz - CPU Benchmarks
T
techspot.com
12/02/2017
Summary of the review
Razer Blade Stealth Review - TechSpot Would you like a comparison of how this specific model performed against its successor, the i7-7600U?
T
techspot.com
21/11/2016
Summary of the review
Asus ZenBook 3 Review - TechSpot
P
pcworld.com
25/11/2015
Summary of the review
Tested: Why the iPad Pro really isn't as fast a laptop - PCWorld
T
techspot.com
21/12/2015
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Book Review > Performance - TechSpot
P
pcworld.com
22/09/2016
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Yoga review: This 2-in-1's OLED screen will color your computing world - PCWorld
T
techspot.com
21/12/2015
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Book Review > Performance: Benchmarks - TechSpot
C
computerbase.de
18/07/2016
Summary of the review
Huawei MateBook Review: From Zero to 2-in-1 with One Major Flaw
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
01/07/2023
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6600U vs Apple M3 Pro 12-Core: Comparison Test
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopcentrum.nl
15/10/2021
Summary of the review
Dell Latitude 5480 | Intel Core i7-6600U
(Translated)Show original
T
techzine.nl
10/07/2017
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Book Review: A Striking Appearance
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
25/04/2017
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Book review: the best notebook right now
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
02/07/2016
Summary of the review
Lenovo ThinkCentre X1 review: an all-in-one in a tailored suit
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 6600U

  • Capable for general office tasks, university research, and web browsing
  • Good value for money when purchased at a lower cost in used laptops
  • Sufficient for 4K video playback and light photo/video editing tasks
  • Low power consumption (15W TDP) allows for thin and portable laptop designs
  • Reliable performance for running older or simple 2D games
  • Compatible with Windows 11 on many systems despite its age

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 6600U

  • Tendency to get very hot and experience thermal throttling during intensive use
  • Heavy workloads like video encoding or complex programming can drain battery life quickly
  • Limited to 2 physical cores, which struggles with modern multi-threaded applications
  • Poor performance in modern AAA games due to the weak integrated HD 520 graphics
  • Slow compilation times for large software projects compared to newer processors
  • No longer competitive with 8th Gen or newer chips that offer double the core count

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-6600U is a 6th Gen 'Skylake' dual-core mobile processor designed for ultrabooks, featuring 4 threads, a 2.60 GHz base clock, and a 3.40 GHz Max Turbo Frequency. Built on a 14nm process with a 15W TDP, it includes 4MB of Smart Cache and integrated Intel HD Graphics 520, supporting up to 32GB of DDR4-2133 or LPDDR3-1866 memory. Its main pros include high energy efficiency for long battery life, strong single-core performance for office tasks, and business-ready features like Intel vPro and Trusted Execution Technology. However, its primary cons are the limited dual-core architecture, which struggles with modern multi-threaded applications, and a lack of official support for Windows 11.

Compare Intel Core i7 6600U 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 6600U and other processors

No results found