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 8665U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£400PassMark benchmark result:6177N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1528TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i7 8665U 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 73% of models
Score components

90%

4.6

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 73% 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 68% of models
Score components

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

5.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 68% 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~ £400

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 8665U

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 68% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

5.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.6

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 8665U 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
5.7/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

60%

4.6

Overall score

40%

8.4

Price

5.7
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
FCBGA1528
CPU socket
FCBGA1528
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1528 CPU socket, which is older than that of 77.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
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
4.8 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
â–² Better than 71% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 71.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.9 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.9 GHz which is lower than that of 75.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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
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
DDR4/LPDDR3
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
â–² Better than 58% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3, which is newer than that of 58% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% 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 UHD Graphics 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 55.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 69% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 68.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
â–² Better than 83% of models
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 83% of processors and equal to that of 8% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 25 W
Show more

Intel Core i7 8665U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 11.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.8 GHz
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard, SMAP, SMEP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 11.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.8 GHz
    â–² Better than 71% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 31.1% smaller die size
    Die size
    122 mm²
    â–² Better than 80% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (122 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    122 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 58.3% lower boost power
    Boost power (PL2)
    25 W
    â–² Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
    25 W vs 60 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 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
  • 41.6% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,177
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,177 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,177 vs 10,572.5
  • 45% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,655
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,655 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,655 vs 4,829
  • 45% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,536
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,536 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,536 vs 2,791
  • 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
  • 13.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,163
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,163 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,163 vs 2,500
  • 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
  • 14.2% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 8665U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.74 vs 6.6).
    5.74 vs 6.56
  • 60% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 8665U is more expensive than the average processor (£400 vs £250).
    £400 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
  • 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
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1528
    â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1528 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1528 vs FP4
  • 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
  • 41.6% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,177
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,177 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,177 vs 10,572.5
  • 45% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,655
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,655 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,655 vs 4,829
  • 45% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,536
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,536 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,536 vs 2,791
  • 13.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,163
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,163 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,163 vs 2,500
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 10.5% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,317
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,317 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,317 vs 1,471
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    19
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • 5.1% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    464
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (464 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    464 vs 489
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (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), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)

Video reviews

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

Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 8665U

  • High turbo boost frequency (up to 4.8 GHz) allows for snappy performance in single-threaded tasks like web browsing and document editing.
  • Efficient for everyday office multitasking, handling 20+ browser tabs and standard office applications without lag.
  • Good consistency in real-world performance under varying conditions according to user benchmarks.
  • Excellent for lightweight business laptops and students due to low power consumption (15W TDP) and portability.
  • Strong support for professional features like Thunderbolt 3 and hardware virtualization (VT-x/VT-d).
  • Capable of light photo editing in applications like Lightroom for small batches of photos.

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 8665U

  • Prone to thermal throttling in thin ultrabooks, where clock speeds can drop significantly after just a few minutes of heavy load.
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 620 is weak, struggling with modern gaming and high-resolution video editing.
  • Noticeable fan noise in many compact laptop models when the processor hits higher turbo speeds.
  • Built on an older 14nm process, making it less energy-efficient and slower compared to newer 10nm or 7nm competitors (e.g., Ryzen 5000 series or 11th Gen Intel).
  • Lacks future-proofing for intensive modern workloads like AI modeling, 3D rendering, or heavy video production.
  • Expensive for its performance level when compared to newer generations that offer more cores and better integrated graphics.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-8665U is a power-efficient quad-core mobile processor from the 8th Gen Whiskey Lake family, featuring 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, a base clock of 1.90 GHz, and a high turbo frequency of up to 4.80 GHz. Built on an improved 14nm++ process with an 8MB Smart Cache and a 15W TDP, it includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 620 and supports up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 or LPDDR3-2133 memory. Its main pros include enterprise-ready vPro technology, strong single-core burst performance for productivity, and excellent energy efficiency for ultrabooks. However, its primary cons are its reliance on an aging architecture that lacks modern integrated graphics power and the tendency for sustained performance to drop significantly under heavy, long-term workloads due to thermal and TDP limitations.

Compare Intel Core i7 8665U 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 8665U and other processors

No results found