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 7700HQ Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£320PassMark benchmark result:6882N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

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

4.7

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 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 68% of models
Score components

90%

4.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 68% of processors
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 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 64% of models
Score components

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 64% 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 7700HQ

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 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 64% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.2

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

4.7
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 7700HQ 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
6.0/ 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 76% of models
Score components:

60%

4.7

Overall score

40%

8.8

Price

6.0
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
Intel 100 Series
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 51% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 68.5% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.8 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.8 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 62.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
L3 cache
6 MB
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% 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
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
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 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 73.9% of processors and equal to that in 2.9% 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), VP8 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode)
â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 59.5% 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)
60 W
Boost power (PL2)
60 W
â–² Better than 50% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 60 W which is lower than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% 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: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i7 7700HQ vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.05x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,687.85
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,687.9 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,687.85 vs 334.1
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    126 mm²
    â–² 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
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 30.7% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    506.78
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (506.8 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    506.78 vs 387.66
  • 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
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 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
  • 5.05x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,687.85
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,687.9 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,687.85 vs 334.1
  • 30.7% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    506.78
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (506.8 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    506.78 vs 387.66
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    126 mm²
    â–² 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
  • 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
  • 11.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 18.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2045
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2045 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,045 vs 2,500
  • 34.9% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,882
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,882 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,882 vs 10,572.5
  • 21.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,149
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,149 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,149 vs 1,471
  • 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
  • 25.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,582
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,582 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,582 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 9.9% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 7700HQ has worse value for money than the average processor (5.97 vs 6.6).
    5.97 vs 6.56
  • 28% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 7700HQ is more expensive than the average processor (£320 vs £250).
    £320 vs £250
  • 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
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ 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
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, 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, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 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
  • 11.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 34.9% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,882
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,882 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,882 vs 10,572.5
  • 18.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2045
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2045 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,045 vs 2,500
  • 21.9% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,149
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,149 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,149 vs 1,471
  • 25.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,582
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,582 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,582 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.8 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 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
  • 64.6% fewer transistors
    N. of transistors
    1.75 billion
    â–¼ 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
  • 25% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    6 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    6 MB vs 8 MB
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    37.5 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    â–¼ 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
  • 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), VP8 (HW decode)
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (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), VP8 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel HD Graphics 630
    â–¼ 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

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
28/06/2018
Summary of the review
All our articles with Intel Core i7-7700HQ tag | LaptopMedia UK
N
notebookcheck.net
29/03/2017
Summary of the review
HP Pavilion 17t (7700HQ, UHD, GTX 1050) Laptop Review
C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7700HQ @ 2.80GHz - CPU Benchmarks
U
ultrabookreview.com
24/06/2025
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7700HQ benchmarks (vs Core i7-6700HQ, i7-7820HK)
T
techspot.com
22/05/2017
Summary of the review
Razer Blade (2017) Review
N
notebookcheck.net
14/12/2017
Summary of the review
Schenker Media 15 (i7-7700HQ, MX150) Laptop Review
N
notebookcheck.net
02/12/2017
Summary of the review
MSI GS63VR 7RG Stealth Pro (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1070 Max-Q, Full HD) Laptop Review Would you like to see benchmarks comparing this model specifically to it...
L
laptopmedia.com
14/07/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-7300HQ vs Intel Core i7-7700HQ – which one is better for gaming and for work?
N
notebookcheck.net
13/11/2017
Summary of the review
Schenker Technologies XMG Core 15 (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1060, Full HD) Laptop Review
T
techspot.com
16/05/2017
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Strix GL502VS Review
N
notebookcheck.net
19/10/2017
Summary of the review
MSI GS73VR 7RG (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1070 Max-Q, FHD) Laptop Review
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
06/04/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7700HQ (Kaby Lake) Review
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
06/01/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7700HQ and GeForce GTX 1050 Review – ASUS ROG Strix GL753VD Performance
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
04/01/2017
Summary of the review
Core i7-7700HQ & i7-7820HK Review: Kaby Lake-H for Laptops is Here
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
20/12/2016
Summary of the review
First review of the Core i7-7700HQ: high-end mobile Kaby Lake
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
28/03/2026
Summary of the review
All our articles tagged Core i7-7700HQ | LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
M
messoanuovo.it
15/01/2024
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7700HQ: Technical Specifications and CPU Performance
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
25/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-7700HQ - Specifications and Benchmark Tests
(Translated)Show original
A
afdigitale.it
29/08/2019
Summary of the review
ACER HELIOS 300 – Is the Intel Core i7-7700HQ still relevant?
(Translated)Show original
T
tech.everyeye.it
26/03/2018
Summary of the review
HP Omen 15 Review: Gaming Laptop with i7-7700HQ", "Acer Aspire V15 Nitro BE VN7-593G Review (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1060)", "Dell Inspiron 15 7000 7567 Gaming...
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
02/03/2018
Summary of the review
Five gaming laptops with GTX 1060 tested - Acer Aspire A717 - Hardware Info
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
10/03/2017
Summary of the review
Acer Predator 15 review: a solid heavyweight
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
21/10/2017
Summary of the review
Acer Aspire 7 A715-71G-76Z5 - Product Review - Tweakers
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
01/03/2017
Summary of the review
MSI GE62 review: MSI's GTX 1050 Ti notebook - Hardware Info
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
03/01/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7 7700K / i5 7600K 'Kaby Lake' processors review - Models - Hardware Info
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
03/01/2017
Summary of the review
Kaby Lake for Desktop Review - Tweakers
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 7700HQ

  • Reliable performance for everyday tasks like web browsing, emails, and office work.
  • Strong multi-threading capability for its generation due to 4 cores and 8 threads.
  • Capable of handling older AAA titles and modern light-to-midrange games (e.g., Apex Legends, Fortnite, CS:GO) when paired with a decent GPU.
  • Suitable for entry-level productivity tasks like Photoshop and light video editing.
  • Often found in more affordable, high-quality legacy laptops.

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 7700HQ

  • Official lack of support for Windows 11, limiting its long-term software lifespan.
  • Prone to high temperatures and thermal throttling in many laptop chassis, sometimes reaching 90°C.
  • High power consumption can lead to poor battery life compared to modern mobile chips.
  • Outperformed significantly by newer generations (e.g., i7-8750H and beyond) that offer more physical cores.
  • Struggles with modern, CPU-intensive AAA games and heavily threaded professional applications.
  • Locked multiplier prevents overclocking for performance gains.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-7700HQ is a high-performance 7th-generation Kaby Lake quad-core processor designed for notebooks, featuring 8 threads, a 2.80 GHz base frequency, and a 3.80 GHz max turbo frequency. Built on a 14nm process with a 45W TDP and 6 MB Smart Cache, it supports DDR4-2400 memory and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 630. Main pros include solid multi-core performance for gaming and content creation for its era, efficient 4K video engine updates, and reliable multitasking capabilities. However, notable cons include its lack of official support for Windows 11, a tendency to run at high operating temperatures under load, and being superseded by later generations that offer significantly more cores and better power efficiency.

Compare Intel Core i7 7700HQ 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 7700HQ and other processors

No results found