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 i9 8950HK Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£480PassMark benchmark result:10346N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i9 8950HK Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.2

Overall score

Score
5.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Score components

90%

5.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 58% of processors
5.2

Technical score

Technical score
5.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 55% of models
Score components

60%

4.8

Performance

18%

5.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 55% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £480

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 i9 8950HK

Technical score
Technical score
5.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 55% of models
Score components:

60%

4.8

Performance

18%

5.1

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.9

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

5.2
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i9 8950HK 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
6.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

5.2

Overall score

40%

8.0

Price

6.0
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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
6x 2.9 GHz
CPU base clock speed
6x 2.9 GHz
▲ Better than 60% of models
This processor has a base clock of 6x2.9 GHz which is higher than that of 60.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ 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
▼ 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
12 MB
L3 cache
12 MB
▲ Better than 54% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
L2 cache
1.5 MB
L2 cache
1.5 MB
▼ 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
▲ 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
DDR memory version
DDR4
▼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
▼ 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)
DDR4-2666 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
▼ Worse than 58% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 58.3% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
▼ 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
▲ 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
▼ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 9-8,950 W
Show more

Intel Core i9 8950HK vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • 11.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.8 GHz
    ▲ 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    ▲ 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
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 2.9 GHz
    ▲ Better than 60% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    ▲ 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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Coffee Lake
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    ▼ 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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • 11.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.8 GHz
    ▲ 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
  • 4 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    12
    ▲ 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
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    6 x 2.9 GHz
    ▲ Better than 60% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    6x2.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    ▲ 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
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    Die size
    149 mm²
    ▲ 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
    ▼ 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
  • 50% larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    12 MB
    ▲ Better than 54% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    12 MB vs 8 MB
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    ▼ 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    ▼ 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
  • 9.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    442
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (442 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    442 vs 489
  • 92% more expensive
    Intel Core i9 8950HK is more expensive than the average processor (£480 vs £250).
    £480 vs £250
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    ▼ 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
  • 40% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1.5 MB
    ▼ 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
  • 92% more expensive
    Intel Core i9 8950HK is more expensive than the average processor (£480 vs £250).
    £480 vs £250
  • 8.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core i9 8950HK has worse value for money than the average processor (6.04 vs 6.6).
    6.04 vs 6.56
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • No crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES
    ▼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1440
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
  • 9.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    442
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (442 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    442 vs 489
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
  • 40% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1.5 MB
    ▼ 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2666 MHz
    ▼ Worse than 58% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 9.1% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,666 MHz
    ▼ 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1
    Category Benchmark
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode), VC-1 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
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet
Not graded yet

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

B
browser.geekbench.com
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-8950HK Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-8950HK @ 2.90GHz - CPU Benchmarks
T
tomshardware.com
30/01/2019
Summary of the review
Gigabyte Aero 15 X9 Gaming Laptop Review: RTX Works, AI Bores
T
tomshardware.com
24/04/2019
Summary of the review
Alienware m17 Laptop Review: Hot Rod Gaming(www.anandtech.com) | 13 September 2018 | The MSI GT75 Titan Laptop Review: Hex-Core DTR
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
29/06/2019
Laptop review · Sustained load test
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-8950HK is a strong 6-core laptop chip that holds its speed under long loads, but its built-in graphics are weak and fans get loud.
T
techtest.org
30/04/2018
Summary of the review
The first Core i9-8950HK laptop review: The new Alienware 15 R4!
(Translated)Show original
notebookcheck.com
07/06/2018
Notebook review · Performance test
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-8950HK gives the Asus ROG Chimera G703GI about 40% more multi-core speed than its predecessor, but turbo drops about 15% during long loads.
L
laptopspirit.fr
07/04/2018
Summary of the review
Coffee Lake: First Benchmarks of Hexa-Core i7-8750H & i9-8950HK Processors
(Translated)Show original
M
minipc-review.com
27/10/2025
Summary of the review
Review of the 2025 Mini PC Intel Core i9-8950HK / Celeron N5095A
(Translated)Show original
notebookcheck.org
01/11/2018
Lab test · Workstation laptop
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-8950HK is only 3% faster than the Core i7-8750H in the Dell Precision 7530, as heat cuts its speed under long loads.
L
laptopmedia.com
11/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-8950HK vs AMD Ryzen 7 1700: Benchmarks and Performance Comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
2018 (Aggiornato)
Summary of the review
Intel Core i9-8950HK - Specs, Benchmarks and Laptop Tests
(Translated)Show original
hardware.info
28/05/2018
Laptop review · Gaming notebook
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-8950HK in the MSI GT75 Titan gives desktop-class gaming speed in a laptop, but the machine is very heavy and needs two power adapters.
H
hardware.info
03/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i5-8600 & i7-8700 review: fresh coffee - Also new CPUs for laptops: 6 cores and Iris Graphics
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
08/09/2018
Summary of the review
Apple MacBook Pro 13" and 15" (Mid 2018) Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i9 8950HK

  • High single-core clock speeds (up to 4.8GHz) via Thermal Velocity Boost when properly cooled
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking in supported systems
  • Significant 6-core performance boost for multi-threaded tasks like 4K video editing and content creation compared to previous generations
  • Supports Intel Optane memory for improved storage responsiveness
  • Includes Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 capable of basic 4K video playback

What we don't like about Intel Core i9 8950HK

  • Severe thermal throttling in thin-and-light laptop chassis, sometimes causing it to perform worse than the Core i7 model
  • High operating temperatures (frequently reaching 90°C–95°C) under heavy load
  • High power consumption (45W TDP) limits battery life in mobile use
  • Often requires user-applied fixes like undervolting or repasting to maintain stable high clock speeds
  • Expensive price premium over the i7-8750H with marginal real-world performance gains in most mobile cooling configurations

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-8950HK is a high-performance mobile processor from the 8th Generation Coffee Lake-H series, featuring 6 cores, 12 threads, and a 12MB Smart Cache. It operates at a base frequency of 2.90 GHz and can reach a max turbo frequency of 4.80 GHz via Intel Thermal Velocity Boost, all within a 45W TDP. As an unlocked 'HK' model, its primary pros include a fully unlocked multiplier for overclocking and significant performance gains in 4K video editing and gaming compared to previous generations. However, its main cons are high power consumption and significant thermal challenges, often leading to thermal throttling in thin laptop chassis unless paired with robust cooling solutions or managed through undervolting.

Compare Intel Core i9 8950HK 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 i9 8950HK and other processors

No results found