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 6700HQ Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£330PassMark benchmark result:6522N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i7 6700HQ Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.3

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 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 81% of models
Score components

90%

4.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 81% of processors
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 76% of models
Score components

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 76% 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~ £330

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 6700HQ

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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 76% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

4.3
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 6700HQ 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
5.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Overall score

40%

8.8

Price

5.7
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
FCBGA1440
CPU socket
FCBGA1440
▼ Worse than 82% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1440 CPU socket, which is older than that of 81.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.7% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
▼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 51% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% 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
3.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
▼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.6 GHz & 4x 3.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.6 GHz & 4x 3.1 GHz
▲ Better than 73% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.6 GHz & 4x3.1 GHz which is higher than that of 73.3% 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
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/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)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
▼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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 530
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 530
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 530 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 78.4% of processors and equal to that in 2.3% 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
350 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
▲ Better than 42% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.3% of processors and equal to that of 26.1% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
★ Better than 94% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 94.3% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
▼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 40.1% of processors and equal to that of 11.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Base power (PL1)
45 W
▼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 39.9% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
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.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i7 6700HQ vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.6 GHz & 4 x 3.1 GHz
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.6 GHz & 4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.6 GHz & 4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 47.5% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    571.98
    ▲ Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (572 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    571.98 vs 387.66
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    ▼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.6 GHz & 4 x 3.1 GHz
    ▲ Better than 73% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x2.6 GHz & 4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.6 GHz & 4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 47.5% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    571.98
    ▲ Better than 64% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (572 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    571.98 vs 387.66
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 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
  • 23.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1915
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1915 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,915 vs 2,500
  • 25.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,099
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,099 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,099 vs 1,471
  • 38.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,522
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,522 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,522 vs 10,572.5
  • 40.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,651
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,651 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,651 vs 2,791
  • 28.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,445
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,445 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,445 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 15.8% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 6700HQ has worse value for money than the average processor (5.67 vs 6.6).
    5.67 vs 6.56
  • 32% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 6700HQ is more expensive than the average processor (£330 vs £250).
    £330 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
    ▼ Worse than 67% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 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
    FCBGA1440
    ▼ Worse than 82% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1440 vs FP4
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 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
  • 23.4% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1915
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1915 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,915 vs 2,500
  • 38.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,522
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,522 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,522 vs 10,572.5
  • 25.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,099
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,099 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,099 vs 1,471
  • 40.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,651
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,651 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,651 vs 2,791
  • 28.7% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,445
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,445 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,445 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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% 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
  • 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
  • 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)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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 530
    ▼ Worse than 78% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 530 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 530 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
No specific date
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6700HQ @ 2.60GHz - CPU Benchmarks Would you like to see a comparison of these benchmark scores against its desktop counterpart, the i7-6...
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
No specific date
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6700HQ - CPU UserBenchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
28/08/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6700HQ - one of the top-shelf mobile Skylake CPUs gets benchmarked
L
laptopmedia.com
19/01/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-6300HQ vs Intel Core i7-6700HQ – which is better for gaming
U
ultrabookreview.com
09/02/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6700HQ benchmarks (vs Core i7-5700HQ and i7-4720HQ)
L
laptopmedia.com
09/09/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Skylake Core i7-6700HQ and Core i7-6500U review
O
openbenchmarking.org
Q4 2015
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6700HQ Benchmarks, Linux Performance
L
laptopmedia.com
09/09/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Skylake Core i7-6700HQ and Core i7-6500U review
L
laptopmedia.com
09/09/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Skylake Core i7-6700HQ and Core i7-6500U Review: Focusing on Features
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
09/12/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6700HQ Review: Desktop-Class Performance at a Core i5 Level
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
25/09/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Skylake Core i7-6700HQ Reviewed - Hardwareluxx
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
28/08/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6700HQ: One of the high-end mobile Skylake CPUs put to the test
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
09/09/2015
Summary of the review
Intel Skylake Core i7-6700HQ and Core i7-6500U Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
19/01/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-6300HQ vs. Intel Core i7-6700HQ: Would you like to see benchmarks comparing these processors to newer 12th or 13th generation mobile chi...
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
06/10/2016
Summary of the review
ASUS X550VX / K550VX review - gaming on a budget
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
14/10/2015
Summary of the review
Acer Predator 17 (G9-791) review
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
27/04/2016
Summary of the review
Short Review of Lenovo ThinkPad T460p (Core i7, GeForce 940MX)
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
18/02/2016
Summary of the review
Short review: Dell XPS 15 9550 (Core i7, FHD) Notebook
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 6700HQ

  • Efficient power consumption compared to older generations like Haswell
  • Solid multi-tasking performance with 4 cores and 8 threads
  • Improved integrated graphics (Intel HD 530) over previous models
  • Lower operating temperatures leading to less thermal throttling in slim designs
  • Reliable 'workhorse' for everyday tasks, office work, and light creative editing

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 6700HQ

  • Minor performance improvement over predecessors (only 5-10% faster than i7-4710HQ)
  • Lower Turbo Boost speeds compared to some older Broadwell models like the i7-5700HQ
  • Integrated graphics are still insufficient for demanding modern AAA gaming
  • BGA (soldered) design means the processor cannot be easily upgraded or replaced
  • Performance can struggle and cause frame drops in intensive modern gaming scenarios

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-6700HQ is a high-performance quad-core mobile processor from the 6th Generation Skylake architecture, featuring 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, a 2.60 GHz base clock, and a 3.50 GHz max turbo frequency. Built on a 14nm lithography with a 45W TDP, it includes 6MB of Smart Cache and an integrated Intel HD Graphics 530 GPU, supporting up to 64GB of DDR4-2133 or DDR3L-1600 memory. Its main pros include strong multi-threaded performance for its era, making it well-suited for gaming and video editing, alongside improved power efficiency via technologies like Speed Shift and Duty Cycling. However, significant cons include its lack of official support for Windows 11, a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and its dated integrated graphics which struggle with modern high-end gaming.

Compare Intel Core i7 6700HQ 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 6700HQ and other processors

No results found