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 8750H Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£340PassMark benchmark result:9750N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.1 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i7 8750H 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 68% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

5.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.9

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~ £340

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 8750H

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%

3.9

Performance

18%

5.0

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.3

Platform

1%

6.9

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 8750H 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
5.8/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

60%

4.6

Overall score

40%

8.7

Price

5.8
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
QM370, HM370
Chipset
QM370, HM370
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor supports QM370, HM370 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 61.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
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
6
N. of physical cores
6
â–² Better than 50% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 49.9% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
CPU threads
12
â–² Better than 55% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 55% of processors and equal to 14.1% 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
4.1 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.1 GHz which is lower than that of 56.2% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.2 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.2 GHz which is lower than that of 53.2% 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
9 MB
L3 cache
9 MB
â–² Better than 52% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 9 MB which is larger than that of 51.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
L2 cache
1.5 MB
L2 cache
1.5 MB
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1.5 MB which is smaller than that of 62.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
â–² Better than 45% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44.9% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% 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
2,666 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to 8.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
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 630
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
â–¼ Worse than 47% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 44.3% of processors and equal to that in 8.3% 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
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
â–² Better than 72% of models
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 72.1% of processors and equal to 2.9% of processors.
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)
?
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: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i7 8750H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.52x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,175.04
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,175 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,175.04 vs 334.1
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Coffee Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more 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 Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    149 mm²
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    This processor provides more 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 Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 3.52x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,175.04
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,175 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,175.04 vs 334.1
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    149 mm²
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (149 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    149 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Coffee Lake
    â–¼ Worse than 50% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 72.9% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,310
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,310 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,310 vs 4,829
  • 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
  • 15.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    412
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (412 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    412 vs 489
  • 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
  • 12.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,282
    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 (1,282 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,282 vs 1,471
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 9.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,267
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,267 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,267 vs 2,500
  • 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
  • 12.3% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 8750H has worse value for money than the average processor (5.84 vs 6.6).
    5.84 vs 6.56
  • 36% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 8750H is more expensive than the average processor (£340 vs £250).
    £340 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
  • 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
  • 2 years older release date
    Release date
    2018
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    April 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 72.9% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    1,310
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,310 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,310 vs 4,829
  • 15.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    412
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (412 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    412 vs 489
  • 12.8% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,282
    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 (1,282 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,282 vs 1,471
  • 9.3% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,267
    â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,267 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,267 vs 2,500
  • 4.7% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 14.8% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    2,377
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,377 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,377 vs 2,791
  • 7.8% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    9,750
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,750 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    9,750 vs 10,572.5
  • 6 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    22
    â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (22 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    22 vs 28
  • 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
  • 12.5% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1.5 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 40% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1.5 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 9.1% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,666 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 2,933 MHz

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

T
techspot.com
21/05/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-9750H vs i7-8750H Review
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8750H @ 2.20GHz - CPU Benchmarks
U
ultrabookreview.com
03/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8750H benchmarks (Coffee Lake, 8th gen) vs i7-7700HQ and i5-8300H
T
techspot.com
04/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8750H Review: Hexa-core Processor for Laptops
P
pcworld.com
26/09/2018
Summary of the review
Dell XPS 15 9570 Review: A 6-core Core i7 makes it all better
P
pcworld.com
25/06/2018
Summary of the review
Intel 8th-gen Core i7 vs. 7th-gen Core i7 CPUs: Should you upgrade?
P
pcworld.com
11/05/2018
Summary of the review
MSI GS65 Stealth Thin 8RE review - PCWorld Would you like me to find specific benchmarks comparing the i7-8750H to more modern processors for a curren...
T
tomshardware.com
11/12/2018
Summary of the review
Walmart's Overpowered Gaming Laptop 17+ Review
N
notebookcheck.net
24/04/2019
Summary of the review
Schenker Work 15 (Core i7-8750H, 16 GB RAM, FHD) Laptop Review
T
tomshardware.com
12/07/2018
Summary of the review
Alienware 15 R4 Review: Bulky Powerhouse
P
pcworld.com
14/09/2018
Summary of the review
Dell G7 15 (7588) review: A six-core gaming laptop that won't break the bank
T
tomshardware.com
06/08/2018
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Strix Hero II Gaming Laptop Review
N
notebookcheck.net
07/08/2018
Summary of the review
Acer Nitro 5 (i7-8750H, GTX 1050 Ti, FHD) Laptop Review
T
tomshardware.com
22/06/2018
Summary of the review
Digital Storm Equinox Gaming Laptop Review - Tom's Hardware
L
laptopmedia.com
03/04/2018
Summary of the review
All our items tagged with Intel Core i7-8750H
(Translated)Show original
F
forum-des-portables-asus.fr
26/07/2018
Summary of the review
Asus ROG Strix Hero II Review: A Top-Tier Laptop for MOBA Fanatics
(Translated)Show original
L
lemondenumerique.ouest-france.fr
20/03/2019
Summary of the review
Alienware m15 Review - Le Monde Numérique
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
12/12/2018
Summary of the review
Razer Blade 15 Review: Fast without overheating—the impossible equation?
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
07/05/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-9750H vs Intel Core i7-8750H – benchmarks and performance comparison
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
03/04/2018
Summary of the review
MSI GE63 Raider RGB with Intel Core i7-8750H
(Translated)Show original
P
profesionalreview.com
02/06/2018
Summary of the review
Gigabyte AERO 15 (i7-8750H) Review (Full Analysis)
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8750H: Specs, Benchmarks, and Comparisons
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
22/06/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8705G vs Intel Core i7-8750H – benchmarks and performance comparison
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
01/04/2018
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide - April 2018 (Introducing the i7-8750H)
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
07/10/2018
Summary of the review
HP Pavilion Gaming 15 review: powerful performance without the fuss
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
05/08/2018
Summary of the review
HP Omen 15 Review - Fast screen in a midrange gaming laptop
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
02/03/2019
Summary of the review
Asus Zephyrus S GX701GX Review (i7-8750H / RTX 2080 Max-Q)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 8750H

  • Significant multi-core performance jump (6 cores/12 threads) over previous quad-core models like the i7-7700HQ.
  • Excellent for CPU-intensive multitasking, including streaming, video editing, and 3D modeling.
  • High single-core turbo boost frequency of up to 4.1 GHz, improving performance in gaming and single-threaded tasks.
  • Enhanced cache performance and support for faster DDR4-2666 memory.
  • Good longevity for power users, often remaining capable for 5+ years of use.

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 8750H

  • Prone to high operating temperatures and thermal throttling, especially in thin-and-light laptop chassis.
  • High actual power consumption under load (up to 80-85W) despite its 45W TDP rating.
  • Requires manual adjustments like undervolting or repasting with high-quality thermal compound to maintain stable peak performance.
  • Lower base clock speed (2.2 GHz) compared to predecessors, which can limit performance if thermal headroom is restricted.
  • Performance is heavily dependent on the specific laptop's cooling solution and manufacturer-set power limits.

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-8750H is a high-performance mobile processor from the 8th Generation Coffee Lake-H series, featuring 6 cores and 12 threads with a 14nm++ lithography. It operates at a 2.20 GHz base frequency and can reach a max turbo boost of 4.10 GHz, supported by 9 MB of Intel Smart Cache and a 45W TDP. Main pros include a significant 50% core count increase over its predecessor for superior multi-threaded performance in gaming and productivity, along with support for up to 64 GB of DDR4-2666 memory and integrated UHD Graphics 630. However, the processor is known to run quite hot under heavy loads, often leading to thermal throttling in thinner laptop designs, and it features a relatively low base clock to stay within its power envelope.

Compare Intel Core i7 8750H 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 8750H and other processors

No results found