OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core i7 7700 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£200PassMark benchmark result:8646N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i7 7700 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.6

▼Worse than 52% of processors

5.1

▼Worse than 57% of processors

9.3

★Better than 92% of processors

4.0
Gaming
Gaming
4.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
4.4
PassMark single-core benchmark score
25.0%
4.3
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
20.0%
5.5
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
1.8
L3 cache
8.0%
2.3
N. of physical cores
3.3
Video editing
Video editing
3.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
3.9
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
20.0%
2.3
N. of physical cores
20.0%
4.4
CPU threads
15.0%
1.8
L3 cache

Best prices

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

Best rankings

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 7700

5.6

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.8

Show more

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Show more

Performance

4.8

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

Show more

Cache & Architecture

4.8

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

5.4

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

?

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

Integrated Graphics

6.7

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Show more

Power & Thermal

6.9

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

Configurable TDP

Show more

Intel Core i7 7700 vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i7 7700 better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

Includes stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
Supports memory overclocking
Memory overclocking
yes
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
10x more popular
Intel Core i7 7700 is more popular than the average processor (10 vs 1).
10 vs 1
28.8% smaller die size
Die size
126 mm²
▲ Better than 70% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
126 mm² vs 177 mm²
16.2% higher user score
User score
9.3/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Intel Core i7 7700
the average processor
Intel Core i7 7700 has a higher user score than the average processor (9.30 vs 8.000).
9.3 vs 8
Advanced security extensions
Security extensions
AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
▼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
Modern CPU socket
CPU socket
LGA1151
▲ Better than 61% of models
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
LGA1151 vs FP4
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

10x more popular
Intel Core i7 7700 is more popular than the average processor (10 vs 1).
10 vs 1
16.2% higher user score
User score
9.3/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Intel Core i7 7700
the average processor
Intel Core i7 7700 has a higher user score than the average processor (9.30 vs 8.000).
9.3 vs 8

Advanced security extensions
Security extensions
AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
▼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
AES-NI, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
Modern CPU socket
CPU socket
LGA1151
▲ Better than 61% of models
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
LGA1151 vs FP4
Broader instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2
▲ Better than 76% of models
This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2 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, F16C, FMA3, AES, CLMUL, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA

28.8% smaller die size
Die size
126 mm²
▲ Better than 70% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
126 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

Supports memory overclocking
Memory overclocking
yes
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.

Includes stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.

Why is Intel Core i7 7700 worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

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
44.4% higher base power
Base power (PL1)
65 W
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
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
18.2% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
8,646
▼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,646 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
8,646 vs 10,572.5
Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4

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
3 years older release date
Release date
2017
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
January 2017
2017 vs 2020

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
18.2% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
8,646
▼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,646 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
8,646 vs 10,572.5
9.8% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
4,356
▼ Worse than 53% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,356 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
4,356 vs 4,829
2.3% lower boost clock
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
▼ Worse than 52% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
4.2 GHz vs 4.3 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
64.6% fewer transistors
N. of transistors
1.75 billion
▼ Worse than 71% of models
Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.8 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
1.75 billion vs 4.95 billion

Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
18.2% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
16.2% lower memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
38.4 GB/s
▼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s

Inferior integrated GPU
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
Intel HD Graphics 630 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.
44.4% higher base power
Base power (PL1)
65 W
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
44.4% higher TDP
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
65 W vs 45 W
20 seconds shorter turbo duration
Tau (power duration limit)
8 seconds
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (8 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
8 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

cpu.userbenchmark.com

30/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-7700 BX80677I77700 - CPU UserBenchmarks

The Intel Core i7-7700 is a 7th Gen Kaby Lake processor featuring a 3.6 GHz base clock and 4.2 GHz turbo boost, offering strong single-core performance suitable for general desktop use. Key pros include exceptional responsiveness, 4K/HDR support, and a 65W TDP that enables easy cooling. However, cons involve a locked multiplier preventing overclocking, marginal performance gains over the 6th Gen predecessor, and lack of official Windows 11 support.

cpubenchmark.net

29/03/2026

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz - CPU Benchmarks

The Intel Core i7-7700 is a 7th-generation "Kaby Lake" quad-core desktop processor operating at 3.60 GHz with a 4.20 GHz boost, delivering a roughly 10,652 PassMark score. It is characterized by high single-thread performance, integrated HD Graphics 630 with 4K support, and an efficient 65W TDP ideal for smaller builds. However, the chip is constrained by a locked multiplier, preventing overclocking, and its four-core architecture acts as a bottleneck for modern heavy multitasking compared to newer, more efficient options. For more details, visit PassMark.

tekeverything.com

21/01/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-7700 Review & Benchmarks | Tek Everything

The Tek Everything review characterizes the Intel Core i7-7700 as a highly efficient, 65W TDP processor, making it ideal for small form factor builds with a 106W total system draw under load. It delivers "snappy" performance roughly matching the stock i7-6700K, making it a strong choice for gamers and creators seeking high performance without overclocking. Technical benchmarks, such as PCMark 8, show the chip offers substantial power for modern, balanced systems, boasting high performance despite lacking the 'K' designation. However, the analysis highlights limited value for existing Skylake owners due to a minor performance jump over the i7-6700, and it lacks the overclocking headroom for enthusiasts.

igorslab.de

03/01/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Kaby Lake: Core i7-7700K, i7-7700, i5-7600K and i5-7600 Review

The igor’sLAB review of Intel's Kaby Lake lineup highlights the generation as an optimized 14nm+ process offering 300–400 MHz higher clock speeds over Skylake, with pros including excellent out-of-the-box performance, superb overclocking potential up to 5.0 GHz, and the beneficial AVX Offset Ratio. Conversely, significant cons include zero Instructions Per Cycle (IPC) improvements and severe thermal issues, with the i7-7700K frequently exceeding 90°C due to poor internal thermal interface material. While the HD 630 graphics offer improved 4K support, the review concludes that Kaby Lake represents a worthwhile upgrade only for users moving from much older architectures, rather than those on Skylake. For more details, visit igor´sLAB. igor´

tomshardware.com

03/01/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-7700: Power Consumption and Temperatures [Tom's Hardware]

The Tom's Hardware review characterizes Intel’s Kaby Lake (Core i7-7700K/i5-7600K) as a 14nm+ optimization of Skylake, featuring higher base/boost clocks (up to 4.5 GHz) and strong overclocking potential, frequently reaching 5.0 GHz. Key advantages include improved media engines for 4K streaming and Z270 chipset features like Intel Optane support. However, the chips lack IPC improvements over the previous generation, leading to identical performance at equivalent clock speeds. Significant downsides identified include high thermal output, with the i7-7700K running exceptionally hot (90°C–100°C+) under stress due to the thermal interface material (TIM). Additionally, the platform lacks Turbo Boost 3.0, and the performance gains are almost entirely derived from the increased factory clock speeds. The review concludes that while the i7-7700K is a top gaming CPU and the i5-7600K offers good value, the generation is a marginal upgrade, making it difficult to recommend for users already on Skylake. It remains a solid option for new builds or upgrades from older platforms like Sandy Bridge. Copy

tomshardware.fr

03/01/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Kaby Lake: Testing the Core i7-7700K, 7700, i5-7600K, and 7600

Intel's 7th-generation Kaby Lake processors (i7-7700K/7700, i5-7600K/7600) offer refined 14nm+ architecture with higher clock speeds and improved overclocking, rather than a major architectural leap over Skylake. Key advantages include Intel Optane memory support, improved integrated graphics (HD 630) for 4K streaming, and strong single-threaded performance suitable for gaming. However, the processors—particularly the i7-7700K—run hot and provide minimal performance gains for existing Skylake users. Pro: High-frequency, "K" series chips offer exceptional overclocking headroom to 5.0 GHz+, supported by BIOS AVX offset features for stability. The platform also supports older Z170 boards via BIOS update, offering cost-effective upgrades. Con: The high operating temperatures necessitate robust cooling solutions, and the performance leap over the 6th gen is minimal.

tomshw.it

02/01/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-7700: Power Consumption and Temperatures - Tom's Hardware

The Tom’s Hardware review of Intel's Kaby Lake Core i7-7700K and i5-7600K highlights high stock frequencies and strong overclocking potential, with the i5-7600K notably reaching 5.1 GHz at 1.4V. While the i7-7700K delivers excellent performance for gaming and content creation, the lineup features minimal IPC gains over Skylake, relying almost entirely on speed increases. Significant thermal and power efficiency issues are present, particularly with the i7-7700K which can consume 137W under load and suffer from 25% thermal throttling due to 101°C peak temperatures. The use of standard thermal paste limits cooling efficiency, often necessitating high-end liquid cooling for stability. Conversely, the i5-7600K provides a more manageable, albeit still high, thermal profile, peaking around 88°C–89°C. Both processors benefit from updated HEVC acceleration, and maintained pricing makes them competitive, though the i7-7700K's power usage can exceed 210W when overclocked.

tweakers.net

28/06/2019

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7-7700 - Reviews - Tweakers

The Intel Core i7-7700 is recognized as an efficient Kaby Lake quad-core processor, praised for low power consumption (65W TDP) and easy cooling, making it suitable for compact builds. It offers strong, reliable performance for gaming and multitasking at 3.6 GHz base, boosting to 4.2 GHz. However, the locked multiplier restricts overclocking, and it lacks significant performance gains over previous generations, along with lacking official Windows 11 support. Copy

tweakers.net

03/01/2017

Summary of the review

Kaby Lake Desktop Review: The Small Step from 6700K to 7700K

The Tweakers.net review positions the Core i7-7700K (Kaby Lake) as an iterative update to the i7-6700K (Skylake), utilizing an refined 14nm+ process to deliver higher clock speeds (4.2GHz base/4.5GHz boost). While IPC performance remains nearly identical, the 7700K offers superior out-of-the-box performance and updated multimedia capabilities. Key advantages include improved 4K HEVC/H.265 hardware decoding, native DDR4-2400 support, and enhanced overclocking potential (4.8GHz–5.0GHz). However, significant drawbacks include higher operating temperatures, likely due to thermal interface material issues, and marginal performance gains for existing 6700K users. Ultimately, the review notes the 7700K is ideal for new builds seeking maximum quad-core performance but offers little incentive for upgrading from Skylake. For more details, visit the review on Tweakers.net.

hardware.info

03/01/2017

Summary of the review

Intel Core i7 7700K / i5 7600K 'Kaby Lake' processors review: the move to 14nm+

The Hardware.info review characterizes Intel's 7th Gen "Kaby Lake" processors (i7-7700K/i5-7600K) as a refined "refresh" of the Skylake architecture rather than a major leap, using a 14nm+ process to deliver higher out-of-the-box clock speeds. Key improvements include base/boost clocks up to 4.5 GHz and a specialized media engine with robust hardware acceleration for 4K video, including HEVC and VP9 codecs. Performance tests indicate a 7–11% increase over the previous generation due to speed improvements, though IPC remains the same. While excellent overclocking potential allowed for stable 5 GHz speeds with standard liquid cooling, the i7-7700K demonstrated significantly high operating temperatures under heavy load. Pros include the higher clock speeds and great overclocking headroom, while cons center on the lack of architectural IPC gains, higher thermal output, and omission of Turbo Boost 3.0. The i5-7600K is identified as a strong value for gaming, with the i7-7700K better suited for heavy workstation tasks. Copy

Third-party reviews

Based on 1,354 buyer reviews from online shops.

Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Intel Core i7 7700

Capable of maintaining stable 60 FPS at 1080p in many older and mid-range titles
Efficient power-to-performance balance for productivity tasks like 3D modelling and audio editing
Reliable for everyday office work and general home computing
Includes onboard graphics (Intel HD Graphics 630), which is useful for basic troubleshooting
Low heat output compared to higher-end 'K' series variants, making it easy to cool
Hardware support for HDR and 4K streaming services

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 7700

Struggles with modern AAA games, often hitting 100% usage and causing frame drops
Limited to 4 cores and 8 threads, which is increasingly restrictive for multitasking
Dead-end platform (LGA 1151) with no viable future upgrade path without a motherboard change
Often considered overpriced on the used market compared to newer, faster budget CPUs
Minimal performance gains over the previous generation (i7-6700)
Lack of overclocking support compared to the i7-7700K variant

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-7700 is a 7th-generation Kaby Lake desktop processor featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock speed of 3.6 GHz and a max turbo frequency of 4.2 GHz. Built on a 14nm process with a 65W TDP, it includes 8 MB of Intel Smart Cache, supports up to 64 GB of DDR4-2400 or DDR3L-1600 RAM, and features integrated Intel HD Graphics 630 with 4K support at 60Hz. Main pros include its reliable multi-threaded performance for daily productivity, low power consumption, and solid single-core speeds for older gaming titles. However, notable cons include its lack of an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, limited 4-core count compared to modern standards, and its official lack of support for Windows 11.

Best alternatives

Intel Core i5 13600K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 7745

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 5 235

Processors

Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF

Processors

Intel Core i5 13600T

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 9600X

Processors

Intel Core i5 14600K

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 7700

Processors

Intel Core i5 14400

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 8700G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 8700F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 9600

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core i7 7700 with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7 7700 and other processors

No results found