I picked a laptop with the i3 8100, as the i3 line of CPUs has been upgraded from 2 cores to for cause this generation, making it much more useful. The 7700 HQ was a widely available mobile quad, core CPU from the seventh generation. So I was interested to see how these compare first let's note the similarities between these two chips: both have 4 CPU cores and 6 megabytes of cache and well that's, basically it as an i7 chip. The 7700 HQ has eight threads due to hyper threading, which the 8100 is missing. The i3 also runs at 3.6 gigahertz, while the 7700 HQ has a base frequency of 2.0 gigahertz, but can turbo up to 3.8 gigahertz for a single core or up to 3.4 gigahertz. For all four cores so slightly lower than the i3 chip, this seems to be represented in the TDP, as the i3 is 20 watts I'll. So there are some interesting differences between the two, mainly with the hyper threading, the clock, speeds and, of course, the power difference. But how much of a performance difference does this make practically to test this I've run some CPU tests and gaming benchmarks on two different laptops with these processors to find out both laptops are running Windows 10, with all available updates installed on an SSD. They both also have 16 gig of ddr4 memory running at 2400 megahertz and nvidia 1066 gig graphics, sir. Overall, the laptops are fairly similar other than the CPUs also note that no thermal throttling was observed with either laptop with that out of the way, we'll start off with the CPU tests followed by the games in Adobe Premiere I've rendered my review video via su Sepphoris Gaming laptop using the h.

264 high bitrate preset at 1080p and no GPS were used for this test. We can see the results are very close together with the 7700 HQ just saving us. A few reckons there's not really much difference at all. Next I've used handbrake to encode a 4k video file to 1080p and a separate 1080p video file to 720p and in both cases the 7700 HQ has taken the lead by over 16. In both tests, I've used veracrypt to test the es, encryption and decryption speeds, and in my testing the 7700 HQ performed close to 50 percent better than the 8100, which I'm guessing is likely. Due to the hyper threading. The 7 zip benchmark was used to demonstrate the decompression and compression speeds of both CPUs and interestingly. Although the 7700 HQ was further ahead in terms of decompression speeds, the gap lowered when it came to compression in Cinebench I've tested both single and multi core performance and as expected in the single core test, the 7700 HQ was only just in front as the single Core clock speeds are pretty close together. Things change in the multi core results, however, with the 7700 HQ seeing a 23 percent improvement, the single core results of Geekbench for show a similar result, and in this test the multi core result isn't too different. It was similar in past Mach 9, where the single core results were close, but there was a slightly larger difference between the two when it came to multi core.

The corona benchmark renders a scene using the CPU and it completed over 30 percent quicker on the 7700 HQ. So far, the 7700 HQs won all of the CPU tests. That'S slightly higher clock, speed and hyper threading appears to be helping. However, in some cases the 8100 wasn't too far behind now let's see how this translates into gaming, starting off with pub g 1.0. When testing with the replay feature, the results are pretty close together with the 7700 HQ generally coming out slightly ahead. The Witcher 3 is pretty similar with the 8100, not too far behind and actually coming out ahead again at max settings in terms of average frame rate 1. Lausanne is good, though: I've tested, shadow of war using the built in benchmark tool and with high settings and above the 8100 actually came out slightly ahead in rise of the Tomb Raider with a built in benchmark tool. The 8100 came out in front regardless of the setting level used. Ghost Recon, with the built in benchmark tool, gave similar results. In almost all cases, the 8100 was just a little ahead of the 7700 HQ in watchdog's tier once again. At high settings are above, the 8100 came out slightly ahead. The averages were pretty close, but in general the 1 lawyers on the 8100 are almost always bet on battlefield. One went slightly better with the 7 700 HQ, regardless of the selling level used. Although the gap narrows at higher settings, ashes of the singularity seem to work better with the 7700 HQ would all, but the highest settings just quickly.

We'Ll go through the unit in benchmarks, including heaven, valley and superposition, which all seem to prefer the 8100 cpu. Although, as these are synthetic tests, I'd trust, the actual gaming results ahead of these it's difficult to declare a clear winner based on the gaming results, as both CPUs seem to trade blues depending on the game and the settings used and in most cases the results aren't. Actually that different as they're so close I'd happily go with the i3 8100 CPU in a laptop purely for gaming, especially if it was cheaper than a comparable, 7700 HQ laptop in most cases at maximum settings. The 8100 actually seemed to come out ahead. If I was going to be using the laptop for other tasks as well and not primarily for gaming, then the Eddy 100 also seems fine if you're primarily running single core workloads, as there wasn't much difference there. However, when it comes to multi core workloads, the 7700 HQ might make more sense as a better rounded option, though, of course it also depends on the pricing for each. If you already have either of these CPUs, then there's no real point in upgrading to the other, especially considering the 7700 HQ, was soldered to the board. So changing would require a completely new laptop in any case, it's great, that the i3 CPUs have been upgraded from two to four cores and the eighth generation they're quite capable – and I didn't think I'd ever be, comparing one to the 7700 HQ and a laptop.

So when did you guys think about the differences in performance between intel's, i7 and 7700? Hq i3. 8100 CPUs. I think it's pretty interesting that we can get desktop CPUs in some laptops and the the i3 having 4 cores. It can, in many cases, mainly gaming, be considered a match for the i7 chip and a generally lower price it'll be interesting to see how the rest of the 8th, gen mobile CPUs, compare once they're released later this year, be sure to. Let me know what you guys thought down in the comments and leave a like if you found the information useful thanks for watching and don't forget to subscribe for future tech.