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 i9-9880H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£470PassMark multi-core score:13485N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:4.8 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i9-9880H Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 52% of models
Score components

40%

5.7

Technical score

25%

7.8

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

▲Better than 52% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

▼Worse than 60%
5.7

Technical score

Technical score
5.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 52% of models
Score components

60%

5.6

Performance

18%

5.1

Architecture

10%

5.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 52%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 61% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each 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.
▲Better than 61%
?

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 i9-9880H

Based on 1 · 4

Reviewers mostly agree it delivers strong benchmark results.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i9-9880H

Technical score
Technical score
5.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 52% of models
Score components:

60%

5.6

Performance

18%

5.1

Architecture

10%

5.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.8

Integrated graphics

5.7
Reviews score
7.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 60% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

7.2
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
FCBGA1440
This processor uses the FCBGA1440 CPU socket, which is older than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
Chipset
QM370, HM370
This processor supports QM370, HM370 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 61.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% 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, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.4% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.8 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.8 GHz which is higher than that of 69.2% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 2.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x2.3 GHz which is higher than that of 60.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
13,485
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 13,485 in PassMark, which is higher than 54.5% 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
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
512 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 512 KB which is larger than that of 62.8% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3, which is newer than that of 56.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% 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 UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% 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/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 66.4% of processors and equal to 1.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 11% 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.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i9-9880H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 2.9x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (986.1 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    986.14 vs 340.075
  • 9.1% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each 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.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 29.7% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,756 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,756 vs 5,209
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each 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.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 2.9x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (986.1 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    986.14 vs 340.075
  • 9.1% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.8 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 29.7% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,756 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,756 vs 5,209
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 17.6% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (13,485 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    13,485 vs 11,469
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 33.3% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (512 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    512 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 15.8% smaller die size
    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
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 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
  • 41.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (234.6 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    234.6 vs 398.015
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 11.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,354 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,354 vs 1,535
  • 8.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (447 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    447 vs 490
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, 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, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1440 vs FP5
  • 88% more expensive
    Intel Core i9-9880H is more expensive than the average processor (£470 vs £250).
    £470 vs £250
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, 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, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1440 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 41.1% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (234.6 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    234.6 vs 398.015
  • 11.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,354 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,354 vs 1,535
  • 8.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (447 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    447 vs 490
  • 4.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,453 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,453 vs 2,558
  • 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 L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    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
  • 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/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/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Video reviews

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

6.0
Avarent
≈ estimated
07/12/2023
Comparison · Cinebench R23 and power draw in laptops
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9880H is a good chip, but the newer Tiger Lake 8-core clearly wins with lower power draw.
7.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
11/06/2020
Comparison · benchmarks, power and temperatures
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9880H, an 8-core chip, is worth it for heavy multi-core work, but not for gaming or best value.
6.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
12/05/2020
Comparison · Premiere, Photoshop, Blender and power tests
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9880H shows little real difference from the i7, which is the easier pick due to availability.
9.0
Tech Showdown
≈ estimated
27/09/2019
Comparison · desktop vs mobile CPU benchmarks
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9880H posts strong multi-core numbers for a laptop chip, making it an excellent pick for mobile video and photo editing.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
ultrabookreview.com
✓ explicit
30/03/2023
Notebook review · Gaming laptop
Verdict
The Intel Core i9-9880H in the MSI GE75 Raider has no usable review text here, so this verdict relies only on reader comments about its build.
8.5
ultrabookreview.com
✓ explicit
22/10/2019
Reader comments · CPU and cooling
Verdict
Intel Core i9-9880H in the MSI GS75 Stealth 9SG runs slightly behind a Razer Blade's i7-10875H and shares its cooling with the MSI Creator 17.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i9-9880H

  • High multi-core performance for professional workloads like video editing and 3D rendering due to 8 cores and 16 threads
  • Strong burst speeds with a turbo clock of up to 4.8GHz, making it feel very snappy for short, intense tasks
  • Excellent for power users needing high-end multitasking and future-proofing in a mobile form factor
  • Significant performance leap (up to 33% increase) over previous quad-core mobile processors
  • Provides a premium, no-compromise experience for gaming and content creation when paired with a good GPU

What customers don't like about Intel Core i9-9880H

  • Extreme thermal throttling is a recurring complaint, especially in thin laptops like the MacBook Pro, where the chip may underperform compared to an i7
  • High power consumption significantly reduces battery life in mobile devices
  • Runs very hot, often hitting 90-100°C under load, requiring aggressive fan profiles or cooling pads
  • Requires high-end cooling solutions to maintain its advertised clock speeds; performance is heavily dependent on the laptop's thermal design
  • High price point makes it a poor value for average users who do not perform heavy parallel computing tasks

Verdict

The Intel Core i9-9880H is a high-end 9th-generation mobile processor built on the 14nm Coffee Lake architecture, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads with a 2.3 GHz base frequency and a 4.8 GHz maximum turbo boost via Thermal Velocity Boost. Equipped with a 16MB Smart Cache and a 45W TDP, it supports up to 128GB of DDR4-2666 memory and integrates Intel UHD Graphics 630 for standard visual tasks. Its main strengths include exceptional multi-threaded performance for heavy workloads like video editing and 3D rendering, as well as high-speed single-core capabilities for gaming. However, its performance is heavily dependent on the laptop's thermal solution, often leading to power-limit throttling under sustained loads, and it is now considered an older model that may bottleneck modern high-end gaming releases.

Compare Intel Core i9-9880H 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 i9-9880H and other processors

No results found