There are a few different chips available, though so let's compare some and find out how they differ. First let's note: the similarities between these two mobile chips. Both have six cores with 12 threads, a 45 watt, TDP and nine megabytes of cache, and no, I won't pronounce it as cache there's, no money in the CPU that's, where the majority of important similarities ends. So how do they differ? The main difference is in the clock, speeds. The 8750 age has a base speed of 2.2 gigahertz, while the 8850 age is higher at 2.6 gigahertz. The turbo speeds are also different with the 8750 age, getting up to four point: one gigahertz and single core workloads and 3.9 gigahertz with all six calls in use, while the 88 58 steps things up to 4.3 gigahertz in single core and 4 gigahertz in all core Workloads so just a little ahead, here's where things get interesting, though the 8850 H can be overclocked by increasing the CPU multipliers, which I did using Intel X to use software, and I was able to get all course stable at 4.3. Gigahertz so we'll see the results of it at birth stock speeds and with the overclock applied. So there are some interesting differences between the two, mainly with the clock, speeds and, of course, the power difference. How much of a performance difference? Does this make practically to test this I've run some CPU specific benchmarks on two different laptops with these processes to find out the 88 58 laptop is the Auris x5 v8, while the 87 50 H was in the asou Sepphoris em.

Both laptops are running Windows. 10. 1803, with all updates to date installed on an SSD. Both laptops are also running with ddr4 memory. At 2600, 66 megahertz in dual channel, however, it's important to note that the had to 8gig sticks while the Zephyrus had to 16 gig sticks. Unfortunately, I don't have spare sticks and I had the laptops at different times, so I couldn't get the same memory, but in any case for gaming we shouldn't see too much difference going from 16 gig to 32 gig. The main factors such as the speed and Jill channel are most important. Both laptops also have Nvidia 1070 graphics, which run it's similar clock speeds under stress tests, so, overall, the laptops are fairly similar in terms of overall specs, with the exception of the CPU. Of course, all gaming tests will also run with the 88 58 overclocked to 4.3 gigahertz on all cause, as I figure, if you're buying it you'll, probably want the best performance will first start off with the gaming results and then check out some different applications afterwards, starting Out with fortnight we're, seeing much larger differences at the lowest settings, which i think is expected as high as setting levels, are usually more GPU dependent in any case at the highest setting levels, there's only a little improvement just over 5, better on the 8850 H at Epoch settings in pub G testing with the same replay, we're again seeing a much larger difference at the lowest settings, with less of a difference at the highest settings, but still that's.

A pretty nice boost in performance with almost 15 better average frame rates at Ultra on the 8850 h csgo rifle is the same pattern, much less of a difference at the highest setting levels, but still a little improvement with the 8850 H, giving us a 10 boost At max settings and the 1 lows and almost 20 of an improvement in the averages Rainbow, six siege was tested with the built in benchmark and we only saw a small difference between the average frame rates and, interestingly, the 1 lows was slightly ahead with the 8750 H Far Cry 5 was another that was tested with a built in benchmark, and the results are much closer together here with the 8850 H only coming out ahead at high and ultra in the averages and again losing out on the 1 lows rise of the Tomb. Raider was also tested with the built in benchmark and again the differences between the two wasn't too much and doesn't really change between setting levels. Battlefield 1 was tested in the first campaign mission and we're, seeing just under a 17 improvement at Ultra settings. Very streak on was tested with the built in benchmark and we're, getting a 15 improvement at Ultra settings, so you're pretty decent and once again a much larger difference. As we step down in settings. Watchdogs 2 was performing around 20 better at Ultra settings with the 88 58, but the 1 lows seem to drop down quite a lot on the 87 58.

So overall was running smoother on the 88 58 at higher settings. The Witcher 3 was going slightly better on the 88 58 at lowest settings, but, interestingly, at Ultra, the results were much closer together with 87 58 slightly ahead in this title, shadow of wall was tested with the built in benchmark and there's, not much difference at all. Here, just over 5 of an improvement at Ultra settings. In most cases, the 88 50h laptop was out ahead, but in some games at some setting levels it was either very close or the 87 50 H was slightly ahead. It really depends on the game and setting level used while running the games on the 87 58. Most of them were averaging 3.9 gigahertz on all CPU cores, while the 88 58 was averaging just under four point: three gigahertz on all cores, so that's about a 10 clock, speed increase in the following application tests for the 87 50 H, I've, actually swapped over to The Dell g5 – this is because the laptop had 2 8 gig sticks of ddr4 at 2666 megahertz in dual channel, exactly the same as the Auris x5, with the 8850 age. I couldn't use it for the game benchmarks, though, as it's got a different graphics card. The zephyrus was the only 8750 h laptop I've had so far with the 1070, so I had to use that for the game in comparison in these application tests I've also under vaulted, both CPUs by minus 0.

15, o volts, as I wanted to try and eliminate thermal And power limit throttling as much as possible from the equation. This, hopefully allows me to show best case scenarios with these CPUs and remove possible restrictions from each laptop. Unfortunately, under bolting was not tested with the games previously, as I just look at those results from past laptop reviews – and I do the game benchmarks, with the laptop at stock. I'Ve also included the 8850 H at both stock speeds and with the 4.3 gigahertz all core overclock applied in Adobe Premiere. I friended my review of the asou severus GX 501 gaming, which goes for around 10 minutes at 1080p, using the h.264 high bitrate prieser no GPUs were used in this test. These results are CPU tests. Only the 8850 H is ahead, but, interestingly with the overclock applied it's slightly slower, I think in this test, with all cause maxed out, it was power limit throttling on the overclock which made it perform slightly worse. A similar result was noted in handbrake, i've encoded, a 4k video file to 1080p and a separate 1080p video file to 720p. Using the HQ presets, the stock 8850 h was only just barely ahead of the 8750 h and again, the overclock made things worse actually resulting in lower than the 87 58 performance again. This shows itself in the v ray results, although this time the 88 58 is still faster than the 87 58, while overclocked but it's getting the fastest score at stock speeds.

I'Ve used veracrypt to test the AES encryption and decryption speeds, and finally, this time we're actually seeing better performance with the 88 50 H overclocked, as I guess this particular workload doesn't cause problems either way. The 87 50 H isn't too far behind here, the 7 zip benchmark was used to demonstrate the decompression and compression speeds of both CPUs and again, like veracrypt we're, seeing a slight boost with the overclock applied. Although the 87 50 H wasn't too far behind in Cinebench I've tested both single and multi core performance, each test was run 5 times and these are the average numbers and were getting a little improvement to single core and multi core performance. With the 88 50 H and then a slightly larger improvement with the overclocked, a similar sort of pattern was seen in Geekbench small improvements with the 88 50 H and then a little more with the overclock applied past Mach 9 behaved similarly again, but I believe these Benchmarks just test different, specific things at a time and are not prolonged workloads like we saw with the first applications. The corona benchmark renders a scene using the CPU and was a bit quicker on the 8850 H with the overclocker in litres shaving of the second. In most cases, the 8850 h laptop was ahead, although, as we saw early on applications like handbrake in Adobe Premiere that actually used all CPU cores for an extended period of time, didn't with the overclock likely due to limitations with the specific laptop in use tests that Were short bursts, like Cinebench, had no problem, giving slightly better performance, though it's important to note that the overclock results on the ad 850 H may vary between laptops.

If you had a laptop with perfect power, delivery and cooling, perhaps you would see better performance in applications like Adobe Premiere, unfortunately, that wasn't the case with the Auris x5 that I was testing with, even while under bolted in the gaming tests. This was less of an issue as the games aren't actually maxing out. All six cores, like these CPU demanding applications are based on these tests. In most cases, the 8850 h does seem to offer some improvement, which is expected as its clock slightly higher out of the box, but can also be raised further with the overclock, which CPU should you get in a laptop honestly outside of gaming? It doesn't seem to matter too much in the applications I've tested and in gaming. It does appear that in most titles the CPU does give us a little performance boost, although that wasn't always the case. So when it comes down to it, it really depends on how much the laptops with each CPU are. Generally, the 8850 H seems to be in higher end options and will therefore likely come out costing more. The recommended customer price per 1000 units on the Intel website is, however, '5 dollars for both CPUs, although that could, of course vary, but does at least give us the idea that Intel sells them at about the same price to their customers. I suspect the 8750 H is a more popular choice: Steudle less power requirements, I haven't tested the differences in battery performance or temperatures, as both laptops are from completely different companies and have different sized batteries as well as different cooling solutions.

So it wouldn't really be a fair comparison, but expect the 8850 H to drain your battery faster, especially if you're running with an overclock on battery power. So what did you guys think about the differences in performance between Intel's 8750 H in 8850? H, CPUs both are pretty well performing i7. Six core chips and I'd honestly be very happy with either of them in my next laptop, be sure to. Let me know your thoughts down in the comments and leave a like if you found the comparison useful thanks for watching and don't forget to subscribe for future tech.