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 i7-8709G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£390PassMark multi-core score:7934N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA2270TDP (Thermal design power):100 W

Intel Core i7-8709G Review: Compare 168 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 45%, Reviews score 25%, List score 20%, 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 61% of models
Score components

45%

5.0

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

20%

?

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 61% of processors
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
5.0

Technical score

Technical score
5.0/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Score components

60%

5.0

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 61%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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 20% 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
Best prices
    N/A~ £390
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 i7-8709G

Technical score
Technical score
5.0/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Score components:

60%

5.0

Performance

18%

4.8

Architecture

10%

4.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

7.2

Integrated graphics

5.0
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

6.9
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.
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
Intel 300 Series
This processor supports Intel 300 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 55% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
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, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% 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
7,934
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 7,934 in PassMark, which is lower than 59.4% 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
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.
Intel UHD Graphics 630
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), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 78.3% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
100 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 100 W which is higher than that of 65.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
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
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i7-8709G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, 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, AMD-V).
    MMX, 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, AMD-V
  • 2.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS 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 vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 30.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,934 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,934 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 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
  • 56% more expensive
    Intel Core i7-8709G is more expensive than the average processor (£390 vs £250).
    £390 vs £250
  • 4.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7-8709G has worse value for money than the average processor (6.91 vs 7.2).
    6.91 vs 7.2
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, 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, AMD-V).
    MMX, 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, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS 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 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
  • 30.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,934 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,934 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • 23.8% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,967 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,967 vs 5,209
  • 9.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,311 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,311 vs 2,558
  • 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 (2400 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) 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), MPEG-2 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W
  • 2.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W
  • 56.3% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (100 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    100 W vs 64 W

Video reviews

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

Overview video

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7-8709G

  • Unique hybrid design combining a quad-core Intel CPU with a high-performance AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH GPU on a single chip
  • Strong gaming performance for an integrated solution, capable of competing with discrete NVIDIA GTX 1060 Max-Q GPUs in 1080p gaming
  • Space-saving form factor allows for thinner and more portable laptops without sacrificing high-end graphics power
  • Good single-threaded performance with a turbo clock speed of up to 4.1GHz
  • Validated for VR and mixed reality applications, offering a baseline performance comparable to desktop entry-level VR requirements

What we don't like about Intel Core i7-8709G

  • High Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 100W requires robust and often loud cooling solutions in laptops
  • Lower CPU core count (4 cores/8 threads) compared to contemporary i7-H series processors (6 cores) which are faster for multi-threaded tasks like video rendering
  • Limited availability as the 'Kaby Lake-G' platform was a niche product and eventually discontinued
  • Relatively high power consumption can lead to reduced battery life when the AMD GPU is active

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-8709G is an 8th-generation Kaby Lake-G mobile processor featuring a unique multi-chip module that combines a 4-core, 8-thread CPU with discrete-class AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH graphics. Built on a 14nm process, it operates at a 3.10 GHz base frequency with a 4.10 GHz turbo boost, 8 MB of L3 cache, and a 100W TDP. Key advantages include its compact form factor that enables high-performance gaming and content creation in thin laptops, 4 GB of dedicated high-bandwidth HBM2 memory, and support for up to 64 GB of DDR4-2400 RAM. However, its high power consumption and heat output require substantial cooling solutions, and its status as a discontinued 'niche' hybrid product can lead to inconsistent long-term driver support compared to standalone components.

Compare Intel Core i7-8709G 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 i7-8709G and other processors

No results found