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 6820EQ Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£350PassMark benchmark result:7025N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i7 6820EQ Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.2

Overall score

Score
4.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

90%

4.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 83% of processors
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.5

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

6.2

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 78% 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

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 6820EQ

    Technical score
    Technical score
    4.2/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    3.4

    Performance

    18%

    4.9

    Cache & Architecture

    10%

    4.5

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    7.2

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    6.9

    Platform

    1%

    6.2

    Integrated Graphics

    4.2
    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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Popularity:
    Intel Core i7 6820EQ 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
    5.6/ 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 90% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    4.2

    Overall score

    40%

    8.7

    Price

    5.6
    Brand name
    Intel
    Processor type
    embedded
    Processor type
    embedded
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor belongs to the embedded processor class, which is less advanced than that of 92.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% of processors.
    industrial/edge
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1440
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1440
    â–¼ 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, Intel 200 Series
    Chipset
    Intel 100 Series, Intel 200 Series
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–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
    â–¼ 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 2.8 GHz
    CPU base clock speed
    4x 2.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    This processor has a base clock of 4x2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 62.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
    Show more
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    8 MB
    L3 cache
    8 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% of processors.
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    64 GB
    Maximum memory capacity
    64 GB
    â–¼ 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
    â–² 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–² 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
    â–² 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
    JPEG (HW decode)
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    JPEG (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 81.4% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
    Show more
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    45 W
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    45 W
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–¼ 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
    â–² 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 6820EQ vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
    • 31.1% smaller die size
      Die size
      122 mm²
      â–² 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
    • Advanced security extensions
      Security extensions
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
      â–² Better than 57% of models
      This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
    • 16.7% more L3 per core
      L3 per core
      2 MB/core
      â–² 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, Boot Guard
      â–² Better than 57% of models
      This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
    • 31.1% smaller die size
      Die size
      122 mm²
      â–² 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
    • 16.7% more L3 per core
      L3 per core
      2 MB/core
      â–² 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
    • 75.6% lower multi-core score
      Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
      1,176
      â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
      Market range: <763 – >14k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,176 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      1,176 vs 4,829
    • 18.6% lower boost clock
      CPU boost clock speed
      3.5 GHz
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
    • 20.5% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      1988
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1988 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      1,988 vs 2,500
    • 33.6% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      7,025
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,025 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      7,025 vs 10,572.5
    • 20.1% lower single-core score
      Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
      1,176
      â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
      Market range: <561 – >2.7k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,176 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      1,176 vs 1,471
    • Narrower instruction support
      Instruction sets
      MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
      â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
      MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
    • 16.7% larger process node
      Semiconductor size
      14 nm
      â–¼ 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
    • 17.7% worse value for money
      Intel Core i7 6820EQ has worse value for money than the average processor (5.58 vs 6.6).
      5.58 vs 6.56
    • 40% more expensive
      Intel Core i7 6820EQ is more expensive than the average processor (£350 vs £250).
      £350 vs £250
    • Narrower instruction support
      Instruction sets
      MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
      â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
      MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
    • 5 years older release date
      Release date
      2015
      â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
      Market range: <2k – >2k
      This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
      October 2015
      2015 vs 2020
    • No crypto acceleration
      Cryptographic acceleration
      AES
      â–¼ 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 CPU socket
      CPU socket
      FCBGA1440
      â–¼ Worse than 82% of models
      This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP4).
      FCBGA1440 vs FP4
    • 75.6% lower multi-core score
      Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
      1,176
      â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
      Market range: <763 – >14k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,176 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      1,176 vs 4,829
    • 18.6% lower boost clock
      CPU boost clock speed
      3.5 GHz
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
    • 20.5% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      1988
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1988 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      1,988 vs 2,500
    • 33.6% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      7,025
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,025 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      7,025 vs 10,572.5
    • 20.1% lower single-core score
      Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
      1,176
      â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
      Market range: <561 – >2.7k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,176 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      1,176 vs 1,471
    • 28.8% weaker multi-core performance
      Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
      1988
      â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
      Market range: <702 – >10.8k
      This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1988 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
      1,988 vs 2,791
    • Lower base clock
      CPU base clock speed
      4 x 2.8 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
      4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
    • 16.7% larger process node
      Semiconductor size
      14 nm
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
    • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
      L1 cache
      256 KB
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
      â–¼ 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
    • Older DDR support
      DDR memory version
      DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
      â–¼ 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
    • Narrower media codec support
      Integrated media encoders/decoders
      JPEG (HW decode)
      â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
      This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
      JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
    • Inferior integrated GPU
      Integrated GPU model
      Intel HD Graphics 530
      â–¼ 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

    Expert reviews

    In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

    V
    valid.x86.fr
    30/03/2026
    Summary of the review
    CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-6820EQ (1T) Would you like to see a comparison of these benchmark scores against the standard i7-6820HQ model?
    C
    cpubenchmark.net
    30/03/2026
    Summary of the review
    Intel Core i7-6820EQ @ 2.80GHz - CPU Benchmarks
    C
    cpubenchmark.net
    Updated Daily
    Summary of the review
    Intel i7-6820EQ vs i7-6820HK - CPU Benchmarks
    V
    valid.x86.fr
    30/03/2026
    Summary of the review
    CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-6820EQ (Single-Thread)
    (Translated)Show original
    V
    valid.x86.fr
    01/12/2025
    Summary of the review
    CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-6820EQ (8T)
    (Translated)Show original
    V
    valid.x86.fr
    01/03/2026
    Summary of the review
    CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-6820EQ (1T)
    (Translated)Show original
    N
    nvent.com
    No date available
    Summary of the review
    Integrated Test System with Intel Core i7-6820EQ
    (Translated)Show original
    C
    cpubenchmark.net
    30/03/2026
    Summary of the review
    Intel Core i7-6820EQ @ 2.80GHz - CPU Benchmarks
    (Translated)Show original

    Third-party reviews

    What we like about Intel Core i7 6820EQ

    • Reliable performance for high-end multitasking and workstation tasks.
    • Strong cost-to-benefit ratio, especially when purchased used on marketplaces like eBay.
    • Supports modern features such as Windows 10/11 (with workarounds for the latter).
    • Offers solid gaming and emulation performance without major bottlenecking when paired with decent GPUs.
    • Good thermal management in workstation-grade chassis.
    • Higher maximum operating temperature (100°C) compared to some older desktop counterparts.

    What we don't like about Intel Core i7 6820EQ

    • Considered an 'End of Servicing' product by Intel as of late 2022.
    • Integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 530) are relatively poor for modern gaming.
    • No native support for Windows 11 due to its 6th Gen architecture.
    • Performance is no longer competitive with current-generation CPUs for intensive modern AAA gaming.
    • Limited maximum supported RAM speeds (standard DDR4-2133) compared to newer generations.
    • Significant performance drops can occur if thermal cooling systems (fans) fail.

    Verdict

    The Intel Core i7-6820EQ is a 6th-generation Skylake-based quad-core processor designed for embedded and industrial applications, launched in Q2 2016. It operates at a base clock of 2.80 GHz with a maximum turbo frequency of 3.50 GHz and features 8 threads through Intel Hyper-Threading, an 8 MB Smart Cache, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 530. Built on a 14nm process with a 45W TDP, it supports up to 64 GB of DDR4-2133 or DDR3L-1600 memory and provides 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes for high-speed connectivity. Main pros include its robust multi-tasking capabilities for industrial automation and medical imaging, support for triple 4K displays, and vPro platform eligibility for enhanced security and remote management. However, its main cons are its discontinued status, lack of ECC memory support, and a fixed BGA1440 socket that prevents easy end-user upgrades.

    Compare Intel Core i7 6820EQ 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 6820EQ and other processors

    No results found