OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i7-7700T review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark multi-core score:7531N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.8 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Core i7-7700T Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i7-7700T
5.7/10

Overall score

Score
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components

40%

4.9

Technical score

25%

4.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

▼Worse than 86% of processors
7.0

Value for money

Value for money
7.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 71%
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.6

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 63%
4.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 76% of models

4.9

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 76%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i7-7700t
  • intel-core-i7-7700t
  • intel-core-i7-7700t
intel-core-i7-7700t
intel-core-i7-7700t
intel-core-i7-7700t
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 i7-7700T

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

4.3

Performance

18%

4.6

Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

4.9
Reviews score
4.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

5.7

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.0
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1151
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 58.8% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 70.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.9 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,531
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,531 in PassMark, which is lower than 60.7% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 78.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 71.9% of processors and equal to that in 2.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
8 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 8 seconds which is longer than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 6.9% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 4 W
Show more

Intel Core i7-7700T vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 20 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (80 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    80 °C vs 100 °C
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    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
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Core i7-7700T is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Core i7-7700T is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    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
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 20 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (80 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    80 °C vs 100 °C
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 26.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models

    4.9

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.9 vs 6.7
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 34.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,531 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,531 vs 11,469
  • 17% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,124 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,124 vs 2,558
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 28.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,703 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,703 vs 5,209
  • 20 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (80 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    80 °C vs 100 °C
  • 26.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 76% of models

    4.9

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.9 vs 6.7
  • 3.9% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7-7700T has worse value for money than the average processor (7.01 vs 7.3).
    7.01 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less 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 Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    January 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 13.6% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 34.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,531 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,531 vs 11,469
  • 17% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,124 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,124 vs 2,558
  • 28.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,703 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,703 vs 5,209
  • 17.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,260 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,260 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    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
    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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    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
    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% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    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), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW dec vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    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
  • 20 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (80 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    80 °C vs 100 °C
  • 20 seconds shorter turbo duration
    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

Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
27/01/2017
Lab test · Low-power desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-7700T is the fastest 35-watt desktop chip, with four cores, eight threads and a 3.8GHz turbo, but its base clock is 700MHz below the 65-watt Core i7-7700.
6.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
27/01/2017
Lab test · Low-power desktop CPU
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-7700T is an eight-thread, 35-watt desktop chip that trades some speed for lower power use, most noticeably against the 7700K.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-7700T

  • Extremely low power consumption (35W TDP), making it highly efficient for [mini-PCs](https://www.reddit.com/r/MiniPCs/comments/1cs7znv/n100_vs_i77700t/) and home servers
  • Runs very cool and quiet, ideal for silent Small Form Factor (SFF) builds
  • Sufficient performance for productivity, code development, and 4K media streaming
  • Support for hardware decoding of H.265/HEVC and VP9 codecs
  • Multi-core performance remains competitive against newer entry-level chips like the Intel N100

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-7700T

  • Significantly lower clock speeds and overall performance compared to the standard i7-7700 or i7-7700K
  • Lack of official support for Windows 11 without workarounds
  • Not recommended for modern high-end gaming or heavy video rendering due to its age and power limits
  • Uses the obsolete LGA 1151 socket, which limits future motherboard upgrade paths
  • Often poor value on the used market compared to newer, faster budget CPUs like the [Intel Core i3-12100](https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/uzqgh0/am_i_right_for_buying_the_i77700/)

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-7700T is a low-power, 7th Gen Kaby Lake desktop processor featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with an 8MB Smart Cache. It operates at a base frequency of 2.90 GHz and can reach a max turbo frequency of 3.80 GHz, all while maintaining a remarkably low 35W TDP. Key advantages include its high energy efficiency and integrated Intel HD Graphics 630 with 4K support, making it ideal for compact, thermal-constrained builds or fanless systems. However, its primary drawbacks are lower clock speeds compared to standard 'non-T' variants, a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and a lack of official support for Windows 11.

Compare Intel Core i7-7700T 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 i7-7700T and other processors

No results found