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 i7-8705G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£470PassMark multi-core score:7633N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2270TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i7-8705G Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components

40%

4.5

Technical score

25%

7.7

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

â–¼Worse than 63% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 72%
7.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.7/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 55% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 55%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £470
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i7-8705G

Based on 2 · 1

Reviewers find both its CPU and gaming performance impressive, with only minor reservations.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7-8705G

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

4.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.8

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

4.5
Reviews score
7.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

6.8
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
laptop
CPU socket
FCBGA2270
This processor uses the FCBGA2270 CPU socket, which is older than that of 67% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% 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
4.1 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 58.7% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
7,633
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,633 in PassMark, which is lower than 60.3% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% 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)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
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
931 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 931 MHz which is higher than that of 93.8% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 73.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 4.4% of processors and equal to that of 85.3% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i7-8705G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 29.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (125 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    125 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 55% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 6.7
  • 3 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (6 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    6 vs 3
  • 2.66x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (931 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    931 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 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
  • 14.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.7/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 55% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.7 vs 6.7
  • 29.4% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (125 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    125 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
  • 3 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (6 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    6 vs 3
  • 2.66x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (931 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    931 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 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
  • 48.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,439 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,439 vs 2,804.5
  • 33.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,633 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,633 vs 11,469
  • 14.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,194 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,194 vs 2,558
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 15.5% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (414 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    414 vs 490
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less 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 Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 88% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-8705G is more expensive than the average processor (£470 vs £250).
    £470 vs £250
  • 6.8% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7-8705G has worse value for money than the average processor (6.82 vs 7.3).
    6.82 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less 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 Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    January 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 48.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,439 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,439 vs 2,804.5
  • 33.4% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,633 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,633 vs 11,469
  • 14.2% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,194 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,194 vs 2,558
  • 15.5% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (414 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    414 vs 490
  • 6.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 16.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,281 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,281 vs 1,535
  • 23.2% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,003 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,003 vs 5,209
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.1 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
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 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
  • 20% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    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
  • 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode) 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), JPEG (HW decode/encode) 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
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

6.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
03/07/2018
Hands-on review · benchmarks and price comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i7-8705G is impressive engineering, but the 8750H with GTX 1050 Ti offers better performance and value for laptops.
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
pcworld.com
≈ estimated
14/06/2018
Benchmark review · Laptop graphics
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-8705G's AMD graphics roughly match a GTX 1050 in most games, but its CPU lead fades on long workloads.
9.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
✓ explicit
27/08/2018
Lab test · Combined CPU-GPU chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i7-8705G puts a quad-core CPU and AMD graphics on one chip for GTX 1050-class gaming in slim laptops, but the CPU slows under combined load.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i7-8705G

  • Space-saving multi-chip design allows for thinner and lighter laptop form factors without sacrificing much power.
  • GPU performance is highly competitive for its class, often outperforming discrete NVIDIA GeForce MX150 and GTX 1050 mobile setups.
  • Integrated 4GB of HBM2 memory provides high bandwidth for graphics-intensive tasks.
  • Excellent for 4K video editing and content creation in portable devices like the Dell XPS 15 2-in-1.
  • Efficient power management that can switch to Intel HD 630 graphics to save battery when the AMD GPU is not needed.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i7-8705G

  • Limited to 4 physical cores, which falls significantly behind 6-core 8th Gen 'H-series' processors (like the i7-8750H) in multi-threaded workloads.
  • Thermal throttling can be an issue in slim chassis, with clock speeds sometimes dropping under sustained heavy loads.
  • Drivers can be a point of frustration, as updates often rely on both Intel and AMD coordination, which has historically been slow.
  • Despite the AMD partnership, it cannot compete with higher-end gaming laptops equipped with GTX 1060 or better GPUs.
  • Limited 'future-proofing' compared to newer 6-core or 8-core alternatives for modern gaming and rendering.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-8705G is a unique 8th Gen Kaby Lake-G mobile processor featuring a 4-core, 8-thread architecture with a base clock of 3.1 GHz and a turbo boost up to 4.1 GHz. A standout characteristic is its multi-chip module design that integrates a discrete-class AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL GPU with 4GB of dedicated HBM2 memory, all within a 65W TDP. Main pros include its space-saving single-chip footprint that enables slim laptop designs to achieve graphics performance comparable to a GTX 1050, alongside 8MB of L3 cache and support for up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 RAM. However, notable cons include its high power consumption and heat generation for its performance class, limited CPU core count compared to newer 6-core alternatives, and occasional software complexities arising from the hybrid Intel-AMD driver ecosystem.

Compare Intel Core i7-8705G 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 i7-8705G and other processors

No results found