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 6820HQ Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£320PassMark benchmark result:6762N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.6 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i7 6820HQ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

90%

4.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

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

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 77% 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

    N/A~ £320

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 6820HQ

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

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.6

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
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 6820HQ 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%

4.3

Overall score

40%

8.8

Price

5.6
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ 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
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
?
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
3.6 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.6 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.6 GHz which is lower than that of 76.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.6% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.7 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.7 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 63.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 69% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 69% of processors and equal to 0.2% 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 6820HQ 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
  • 30.4% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    505.34
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (505.3 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    505.34 vs 387.66
  • 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
  • 30.4% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    505.34
    â–² Better than 60% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (505.3 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    505.34 vs 387.66
  • 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
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 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
  • 22.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1931
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1931 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,931 vs 2,500
  • 27% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    357
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (357 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    357 vs 489
  • 23.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,120
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,120 vs 1,471
  • 36% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,762
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,762 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,762 vs 10,572.5
  • 37% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,759
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,759 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,759 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 16.5% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 6820HQ has worse value for money than the average processor (5.63 vs 6.6).
    5.63 vs 6.56
  • 28% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 6820HQ is more expensive than the average processor (£320 vs £250).
    £320 vs £250
  • 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).
    September 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
  • 16.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.6 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.6 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.6 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
  • 22.8% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1931
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1931 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,931 vs 2,500
  • 27% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    357
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (357 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    357 vs 489
  • 36% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,762
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,762 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,762 vs 10,572.5
  • 23.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,120
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,120 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,120 vs 1,471
  • 37% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,759
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,759 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,759 vs 2,791
  • 26.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,564
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,564 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,564 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.7 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.7 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
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (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)

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

O
openbenchmarking.org
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core I7-6820HQ Benchmarks, Linux Performance
B
browser.geekbench.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6820HQ Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6820HQ @ 2.70GHz - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpu.userbenchmark.com
01/12/2025
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6820HQ - CPU UserBenchmarks
P
pcgamebenchmark.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6820HQ Benchmark - PCGameBenchmark
C
cpu-monkey.com
03/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6820HQ vs Intel Core Ultra 7 165H - CPU-Monkey
(Translated)Show original
V
valid.x86.fr
15/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-6820HQ (1T) - Validator
(Translated)Show original
C
cpu-monkey.com
03/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-6820HQ Benchmarks & Specs - CPU-Monkey
(Translated)Show original
P
pcggthaleshengelo.nl
01/05/2017
Summary of the review
Test Intel Core i7-6820HQ Processor", "HP ZBook 15 G3 Workstation Review", "Brief Review of the Dell Precision 3510 Workstation
(Translated)Show original
A
asbascomputers.nl
14/03/2022
Summary of the review
Product Overview: HP ZBook 17 G3 with Core i7-6820HQ
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 6820HQ

  • Reliable workhorse for daily tasks, office work, and programming
  • Capable of handling demanding software and excessive multitasking
  • Great value for money when purchased second-hand
  • Stronger overall performance compared to similar older quad-core products
  • Maintains good thermals and reduced throttling under long-lasting full loads
  • Supports 4K video playback and basic video editing efficiently

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

  • Lacks native support for Windows 11, requiring workarounds for installation
  • Integrated graphics (HD Graphics 530) are considered weak for modern gaming
  • Four cores may feel limiting for highly intensive modern workloads
  • High power consumption (45W TDP) makes it unsuitable for slim or passively cooled laptops
  • Outdated architecture compared to 8th Gen and newer processors which offer more cores and better efficiency
  • Slower compilation speeds for complex programming tasks

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-6820HQ is a high-performance quad-core mobile processor from the Skylake architecture (6th Generation), featuring a 2.7 GHz base frequency, 3.6 GHz max turbo speed, 8 MB of Smart Cache, and a 45W TDP. It supports up to 64 GB of DDR4-2133 or DDR3L-1600 memory and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 530 with 4K support at 60Hz. Main pros include its solid multi-threaded performance for demanding workstations, support for enterprise security features like Intel vPro and TXT, and high energy efficiency for its era due to the 14nm manufacturing process. However, it lacks an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, is officially unsupported for Windows 11 without workarounds, and can experience performance throttling in laptops with inadequate cooling solutions.

Compare Intel Core i7 6820HQ 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 6820HQ and other processors

No results found