Name: Intel Core i7 6822EQ
Brand: Intel

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 6822EQ

5.2

Hide

Platform

7.6

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Performance

5.1

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Cache & Architecture

4.9

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Memory & PCIe

4.6

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Integrated Graphics

6.5

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Power & Thermal

7.1

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

Configurable TDP

Intel Core i7 6822EQ vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i7 6822EQ better than the average processor?

Hide

44.4% lower base power
Base power (PL1)
25 W
▲ Better than 74% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
25 W vs 45 W
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
47.9% lower boost power
Boost power (PL2)
31.25 W
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (31.3 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
31.25 W vs 60 W
Advanced security extensions
Security extensions
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
▲ 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
44.4% lower TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
25 W
▲ Better than 75% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
25 W vs 45 W
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, Boot Guard
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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

44.4% lower base power
Base power (PL1)
25 W
▲ Better than 74% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
25 W vs 45 W
47.9% lower boost power
Boost power (PL2)
31.25 W
▲ Better than 80% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (31.3 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
31.25 W vs 60 W
44.4% lower TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
25 W
▲ Better than 75% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (25 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
25 W vs 45 W

Why is Intel Core i7 6822EQ worse than the average processor?

Hide

34.9% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
2.8 GHz
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
35.2% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,619
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,619 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,619 vs 2,500
47.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
5,550
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,550 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
5,550 vs 10,572.5
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
No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
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

28% more expensive
Intel Core i7 6822EQ is more expensive than the average processor (£320 vs £250).
£320 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).
October 2015
2015 vs 2020
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
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

34.9% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
2.8 GHz
▼ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
2.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
35.2% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1,619
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,619 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,619 vs 2,500
47.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
5,550
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,550 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
5,550 vs 10,572.5
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
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
4 x 2.0 GHz
▼ Worse than 73% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
4x2.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz

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
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

25.5% 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)
DDR4-2133 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
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

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)
▲ Better than 55% 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) 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) 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
▼ 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

No configurable TDP
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

cpubenchmark.net

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel i7-6700HQ vs i7-6822EQ - CPU Benchmarks

PassMark comparisons reveal a clear performance-versus-efficiency tradeoff between the Intel Core i7-6700HQ and the i7-6822EQ, both of which are 6th-gen Skylake processors. The i7-6700HQ (2.6 GHz base) is a performance-oriented chip with higher throughput for demanding tasks, while the i7-6822EQ (2.0 GHz base) functions as an embedded-style, lower-power processor. The i7-6700HQ offers superior speed, roughly 15% faster in benchmark tests, making it better for laptops needing raw power, but its 45W TDP results in higher heat generation. A notable con for the 6700HQ is its lack of official support for Windows 11. Conversely, the i7-6822EQ's primary advantage is its 25W TDP, yielding a 44% lower power draw compared to the 6700HQ. Although this results in a roughly 15% performance penalty in multi-threaded tasks, the 6822EQ is the superior choice for energy efficiency, embedded systems, or fanless, compact configurations. For more details, visit PassMark.

March 29, 2026 (Updated Daily)

Intel Core i7-6822EQ @ 2.00GHz - CPU Benchmarks

The Intel Core i7-6822EQ is a 6th-generation Skylake embedded processor featuring 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 2.0 GHz base clock, optimized for energy efficiency in industrial applications. With a 25W TDP and 8 MB Intel Smart Cache, this 14nm CPU offers low power consumption but delivers moderate, specialized performance rather than high-speed computing. While suitable for basic tasks and embedded systems, it falls behind higher-power mobile processors of the same era in both multi-threaded, such as the i7-6820HQ, and single-threaded, like the i7-4810MQ, benchmarks. Detailed benchmarks and specifications can be found at cpubenchmark.net.

30/03/2026

Benchmarks and Performance of the Intel Core i7-6822EQ @ 2.00GHz

The Intel Core i7-6822EQ is a 6th-gen Skylake processor, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 2.0 GHz base clock, aimed at embedded and laptop applications. It delivers a 5,550 CPU Mark score and 1,619 single-thread rating. A key strength is its 25W TDP for high energy efficiency, paired with 64GB DDR4 support and Intel HD Graphics 530. However, its limited 2.8 GHz turbo frequency and age make it outdated for modern, intensive tasks compared to faster contemporaries like the i7-6820HQ. For the full technical breakdown, visit PassMark Software.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 6822EQ

Low power consumption with a 25W TDP, making it highly efficient for embedded and laptop systems
Support for 8 threads via Hyper-Threading allows for decent multitasking and productivity in its class
Generous 8MB L3 cache improves system-wide performance and data handling
Supports modern features for its era, including DDR4 memory and PCIe 3.0
High maximum operating temperature (100°C) provides a safety margin in industrial or compact environments

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 6822EQ

Relatively low base clock speed of 2.0 GHz compared to other i7 models of the same generation
No longer competitive for modern AAA gaming or high-end workstation tasks
Single-thread performance is notably slower than higher-TDP mobile counterparts like the i7-6820HQ
End of life status means it no longer receives official servicing updates from Intel
Integrated HD Graphics 530 is underpowered for anything beyond basic multimedia and light office work

Intel Core i7 6822EQ Review | 78 Data compared

Best prices

Best rankings

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 6822EQ

Intel Core i7 6822EQ vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i7 6822EQ better than the average processor?

Why is Intel Core i7 6822EQ worse than the average processor?

Expert reviews

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 6822EQ

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 6822EQ

Verdict

Best alternatives

Compare Intel Core i7 6822EQ with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7 6822EQ and other processors