Real life difference between U and HQ series? (mobile intel processors)

[Jttw2]

Can you tell the difference in real life between a U and HQ series processor?

 

[geofelt]

Unless you are running batch production apps, I think you will find very little difference.
Look for the passmark numbers of the two particular chips you are interested in for differences.
To my mind the single most important performance option for a laptop is using a ssd for windows.

 

[James Mason]

U is a lower powered variant,I believe it actually does perform worse, for netbooks and lighter laptops
HQ is a fullpower "laptop model" though, but still performs worse than standard desktop models.

 

[weilin]

For Skylake generation chips, U series processors are rated for 15w (very rarely 28w). the HQ series are rated for 45w.

Implications:
all (maybe?) U series are dual core CPUs (with or without HT), all (maybe?) HQ are quad cores (with or without HT)
U series last longer on the same battery size (the HQ series sometimes have a bigger battery to compensate)
When doing complex continuous workloads the HQ series will be faster (Being able to sustain 45w means it has roughly 1/2 the power budget of a desktop CPU)
When doing simple workloads, both will perform about the same
HQ series will be a bit heavier due to the need for a much larger dissipation requirements (and thus the unit won't be nearly as thin)

which one benefits you the most will depend upon what you're trying to do. If you're just browsing the internet, checking email and watching youtube etc, then the U series is targeted towards you. If you want to encode movies, compile lots of code, compress/decompress a lot of files, you'll have to ask yourself, can you afford to wait twice as long? Are you willing to trade the formfactor (thinness of laptop) for something thicker but run test CPU intensive tests faster...

 

[Eximo]

Really have to look at the individual SKU. U, HQ, MQ, MX etc don't seem to have much in common between generations, and not really amongst themselves either.

Pay close attention to the amount of onboard cache, and the maximum clock speed. The number of cores and with or without hyperthreading. Basically these can be directly compared to their desktop counterparts with the same cache/core/hyperthread count and proportional to frequency.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

The HQ chips are significantly better. They have more cores and higher clock rates. We're talking about an I7 HQ being 3X better than an I7 U.

 

[Jttw2]

Unless you are running batch production apps, I think you will find very little difference.
Look for the passmark numbers of the two particular chips you are interested in for differences.
To my mind the single most important performance option for a laptop is using a ssd for windows.

Checked passmark and the difference is crazy, the performance is double on the HQ series

 

[geofelt]

Unless you are running batch production apps, I think you will find very little difference.
Look for the passmark numbers of the two particular chips you are interested in for differences.
To my mind the single most important performance option for a laptop is using a ssd for windows.

Checked passmark and the difference is crazy, the performance is double on the HQ series

There are two passmark numbers.
The total applies when all threads are in use such as when running multithreaded applications.
The single thread performance number will apply to everyday work and for many games.
What processors did you compare?