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 7820HK Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£320PassMark benchmark result:7405N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i7 7820HK Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.6

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 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 72% of models
Score components

90%

4.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 72% of processors
4.6

Technical score

Technical score
4.6/ 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 67% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 67% 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 7820HK

Technical score
Technical score
4.6/ 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 67% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.3

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

4.6
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 7820HK 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
5.9/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

60%

4.6

Overall score

40%

8.8

Price

5.9
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
?
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
3.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 64.9% of processors and equal to that of 3.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.9 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 61.5% 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
8 MB
L3 cache
8 MB
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% 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)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
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
?
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)
56.25 W
Boost power (PL2)
56.25 W
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 56.25 W which is lower than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
8 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
8 seconds
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 8 seconds which is longer than that of 89.9% of processors and equal to that of 7% 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 7820HK vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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
  • 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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • 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
  • 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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
  • 20.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    388
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (388 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    388 vs 489
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 15.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,110
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,110 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,110 vs 2,500
  • 35.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,801
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,801 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,801 vs 2,791
  • 30% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,405
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,405 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,405 vs 10,572.5
  • 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
  • 11.5% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 7820HK has worse value for money than the average processor (5.89 vs 6.6).
    5.89 vs 6.56
  • 28% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 7820HK is more expensive than the average processor (£320 vs £250).
    £320 vs £250
  • 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
  • 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).
    March 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 20.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    388
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (388 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    388 vs 489
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 15.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,110
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,110 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,110 vs 2,500
  • 35.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,801
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,801 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,801 vs 2,791
  • 30% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,405
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,405 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,405 vs 10,572.5
  • 13.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,275
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,275 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,275 vs 1,471
  • 12.8% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    4,209
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,209 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,209 vs 4,829
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.9 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 7820HK

  • Overclocking Capability: Features an unlocked multiplier ('K' SKU), allowing enthusiasts to push clock speeds beyond the standard 3.9GHz boost.
  • Strong Performance for its Era: At launch, it was a top-tier mobile quad-core processor that handled demanding gaming and multitasking with ease.
  • Larger Cache: Includes an 8MB L3 cache, which provides a noticeable performance bump over mainstream models like the i7-7700HQ.
  • Good Single-Threaded Speed: Offers high per-core performance, making it effective for older software and games that don't utilize many cores.

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 7820HK

  • High Thermal Output: Users frequently report high operating temperatures (often reaching 90°C+), necessitating high-end cooling or aftermarket repasting.
  • Outdated Core Count: As a 4-core/8-thread chip, it struggles with modern multi-threaded games and applications compared to newer 6- or 8-core processors.
  • Windows 11 Compatibility: Not officially supported for Windows 11 upgrades, which is a major point of frustration for long-term owners.
  • High Power Consumption: Its 45W TDP and overclocking potential can lead to significant battery drain and require beefy power supplies.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-7820HK is a high-performance quad-core laptop processor based on the 14nm Kaby Lake architecture, featuring 4 cores, 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, and an 8 MB L3 cache. It operates at a base frequency of 2.9 GHz with a turbo boost up to 3.9 GHz and includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 630. A primary advantage is its unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking to achieve higher frequencies (up to 4.3 GHz in some configurations), providing performance comparable to desktop quad-core CPUs for demanding tasks like gaming and video editing. However, significant cons include its high 45W TDP, which can lead to high power consumption and temperatures reaching 90°C under load, alongside a lack of official support for Windows 11 due to its 7th-generation architecture.

Compare Intel Core i7 7820HK 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 7820HK and other processors

No results found