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 7500U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£330PassMark benchmark result:3635N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1356TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i7 7500U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.8

Overall score

Score
3.8/ 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 92% of models
Score components

90%

3.8

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 92% of processors
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 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 90% of models
Score components

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 90% 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~ £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 7500U

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 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 90% of models
Score components:

60%

2.8

Performance

18%

4.7

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

3.8
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 7500U 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
5.3/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Overall score

40%

8.8

Price

5.3
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
FCBGA1356
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1356 CPU socket, which is older than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
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
2
N. of physical cores
2
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
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
2x 2.7 GHz
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.7 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 85.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% 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
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
L2 cache
0.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 84.7% of processors and equal to that of 15.3% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
L1 cache
128 KB
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.8% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
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
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
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 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 620
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 76.8% of processors and equal to that in 0.4% 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
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (H
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 83% of processors and equal to that of 8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
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: 25 W
Show more

Intel Core i7 7500U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.38x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,309.46
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,309.5 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,309.46 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 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, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ 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
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    149 mm²
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ 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
  • 3.38x faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,309.46
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,309.5 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,309.46 vs 387.66
  • 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
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    149 mm²
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 65.6% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,635
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,635 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,635 vs 10,572.5
  • 73.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    739
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (739 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    739 vs 2,791
  • 59.1% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1973
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1973 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,973 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
  • 24% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1901
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1901 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,901 vs 2,500
  • 27.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    354
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (354 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    354 vs 489
  • 22.5% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,140
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,140 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,140 vs 1,471
  • 23.3% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 7500U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.32 vs 6.6).
    5.32 vs 6.56
  • 32% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 7500U is more expensive than the average processor (£330 vs £250).
    £330 vs £250
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1356
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1356 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1356 vs FP4
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 4 years older release date
    Release date
    2016
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2016 vs 2020).
    August 2016
    2016 vs 2020
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 65.6% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    3,635
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,635 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,635 vs 10,572.5
  • 73.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    739
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (739 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    739 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 59.1% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1973
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1973 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,973 vs 4,829
  • 24% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1901
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1901 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,901 vs 2,500
  • 27.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    354
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (354 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    354 vs 489
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 22.5% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,140
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,140 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,140 vs 1,471
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    2 x 2.7 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    2x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 80% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    0.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    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
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    128 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 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
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 27.3% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,133 MHz
    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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
    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
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (H
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (H vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (H 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 620
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 620 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 620 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

V
valid.x86.fr
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for Intel Core i7-7500U (1T) Would you like a comparison of these benchmark results against a newer generation processor?
O
openbenchmarking.org
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core I7-7500U Benchmarks, Linux Performance
C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7500U @ 2.70GHz - CPU Benchmarks
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
07/11/2016
Summary of the review
Kaby Lake – Intel Core i7-6500U vs. Intel Core i7-7500U
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
01/11/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7500U Review: 3.5 GHz and HEVC Main 10 for Ultrabooks
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
23/09/2016
Summary of the review
Here's how fast Kaby Lake is: First benchmarks of the i7-7500U
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.it
30/08/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7500U Notebook Processor (Benchmarks and Tests)
(Translated)Show original
F
forum.tomshw.it
28/12/2016
Summary of the review
OFFICIAL - Dell Inspiron 5567 i7 FHD Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
21/11/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7500U (Kaby Lake) – benchmarks and specifications
(Translated)Show original
T
techzine.nl
13/04/2017
Summary of the review
HP Spectre x360 Review: A Beautiful, Thin Laptop (Intel Core i7-7500U)
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
28/09/2016
Summary of the review
Intel Kaby Lake Benchmark - The i7-7500U tested in the Asus Zenbook 3
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
23/10/2017
Summary of the review
ASUS VivoBook F510 (X510UQ) review - a solid solution (i7-7500U)
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
08/12/2016
Summary of the review
Dell XPS 13 (9360, Late 2016) review - the best just got even better (i7-7500U)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 7500U

  • Efficient power consumption for improved battery life in ultrabooks
  • Strong single-core performance for everyday productivity and web browsing
  • Significant improvement in 4K video decoding (HEVC Main10) compared to previous generations
  • Higher clock speeds (up to 3.5GHz) provide a noticeable boost over its predecessor
  • Integrated Intel HD 620 graphics are sufficient for basic media and light gaming

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 7500U

  • Limited to 2 physical cores, which struggles with modern multi-threaded applications
  • Lacks significant performance gains over the mid-range i5-7200U despite the 'i7' branding
  • Poor choice for intensive gaming or professional video rendering
  • Outperformed by newer 8th Gen i3 and i5 processors that introduced more cores
  • Low cache (4MB) and slow bus speed compared to high-performance 'HQ' series chips

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-7500U is a 7th-generation 'Kaby Lake' dual-core mobile processor featuring 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, a base clock speed of 2.70 GHz, and a Max Turbo frequency of 3.50 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with a 15W TDP, it includes 4MB of Smart Cache and integrated Intel HD Graphics 620, supporting up to 32GB of DDR4-2133 or LPDDR3-1866 memory. Its main strengths lie in its energy efficiency for ultrabooks, capable 4K video decoding, and solid single-core performance for everyday productivity. However, its primary drawbacks are the limited dual-core configuration, which struggles with intensive multi-core workloads compared to modern quad-core alternatives, and its lack of official support for Windows 11.

Compare Intel Core i7 7500U 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 7500U and other processors

No results found