[SOLVED] What is the modern equivalent of the i7-6700HQ

[Exploding PSU]

Evening,
Sorry if I posted this on the wrong forum, not sure if this kind of question should go to this section or the laptops section..

Quick question, I'm not really well-versed in the world of laptop CPUs, but I was wondering which "modern-era" CPU has equal performance to the i7-6700HQ??

Some background, I have a laptop powered by the 6700HQ CPU that I use to run a work-related program. Now, I'm not a programmer or anything (and I really can't divulge much more info about the program, sorry), but for some reason the program can only run well on CPUs with 6700HQ-level performance or above. This is reflected on the laptop issued by the company, they all are powered by either i7-6700HQ, i5-6300HQ, or i7-7700HQ . One of my coworker bought a laptop with i7-7500U (I think, but it was 7th gen) and she told me the program "lagged all over the place". I don't know if it's the core counts or the clock speed or if the program was badly made.... but it is what it is.

Now, my laptop is dying. It's been 6-7 years, so I guess it's high time for an upgrade anyway. Unfortunately, I'm kind of strapped for cash right now and I honestly I don't want to spend too much for performance I don't need. So I'm looking for a "sidegrade". I wanted a newer laptop that has a performance roughly equal to the old i7-6700HQ.
By newer, I meant.... maybe 8th gen or newer Intel?? Or even AMD Ryzen, that's ok too. Has technology progressed far enough for a relatively new i5 or even i3 to match the old i7-6700HQ in performance? I mean, in desktop GPU side a decidedly midrange 6600XT could give a 1080 Ti a run for its money these days, maybe the same thing also applies on the mobile CPU world?

Anyway, thank you in advance.

 

[DSzymborski]

Something like an i5-1135G7 would perform in the same basic range, and is also a four-core, eight-thread CPU.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

Or the more modern equivalent would likely be something like the i3 12100. Though that is probably a little more powerful tbh.

 

[Nighthawk117]

If your looking for something in a similar performance category then the i5-10300H would most likely be the closest, I've occasionally seen an older laptop for sale with one of those. It's the same Skylake architecture and 4 cores/8 threads. As @DSzymborski suggests the i5-1135G7 and i7-1165G7 are also pretty close. A modern i5 such as the i5-1235U would be faster than the 6700HQ. The modern H CPU's are much more powerful, I would not get an i3.

 

[Exploding PSU]

Something like an i5-1135G7 would perform in the same basic range, and is also a four-core, eight-thread CPU.

If your looking for something in a similar performance category then the i5-10300H would most likely be the closest, I've occasionally seen an older laptop for sale with one of those. It's the same Skylake architecture and 4 cores/8 threads. As @DSzymborski suggests the i5-1135G7 and i7-1165G7 are also pretty close. A modern i5 such as the i5-1235U would be faster than the 6700HQ. The modern H CPU's are much more powerful, I would not get an i3.

Wait, so a relatively low power i5-1135G7 can match the power-hungry i7-6700HQ? That's impressive, I didn't expect that.

A (very) quick search shows that i5-10300H machines are mostly gaming laptops, which isn't really what I need (I just don't need the discrete graphics). Then the prices.... i5-10300H and i5-1235U starts around 1000 AUD range (found a few of them around 900). Nevertheless the i5-1135G7 could be found for 700 AUD. That's a significant difference in favor of the 1135G7. Any specific reasons why you wouldn't get an i3?? I mean it's still 4 threads right?

That said, how about the i5-8250U? I mean, it's quad core too, but it's U series (AFAIK U translates to low-power right?). Would you consider it as a viable option considering its age? Just trying to weigh the options here...

Or the more modern equivalent would likely be something like the i3 12100. Though that is probably a little more powerful tbh.

Isn't that... a desktop CPU? I'm currently looking for laptops, or maybe I'm missing something and a mobile version of the 12100 does actually exist?

 

[Nighthawk117]

Wait, so a relatively low power i5-1135G7 can match the power-hungry i7-6700HQ? That's impressive, I didn't expect that.

Tiger Lake is around 25% faster at the same clock speed so it should be quicker if they are running at similar clock speeds. The only note of caution is it depends on the cooling of the laptop and how its configured. If the CPU is allowed to run at it's base frequency under sustained loads then it's going to be quicker. The 11th gen CPU's are still quite widely available and it's not uncommon to find them discounted now so that's probably where I'd start my search.

hen the prices.... i5-10300H and i5-1235U starts around 1000 AUD range (found a few of them around 900). Nevertheless the i5-1135G7 could be found for 700 AUD. That's a significant difference in favor of the 1135G7. Any specific reasons why you wouldn't get an i3?? I mean it's still 4 threads right?

The 12th gen is the latest so you won't get that discounted. If it's a big saving I would go for the i5-1135G7. The i3 is 4 threads but it's 2 cores/4 threads, there's no value in the i3. It won't age well, we are in an era of high core count CPU's, anything less than a quad core these days really shows it's age even in general use. That's not really a good place to start if you intend to keep the laptop for a while.

That said, how about the i5-8250U? I mean, it's quad core too, but it's U series (AFAIK U translates to low-power right?). Would you consider it as a viable option considering its age? Just trying to weigh the options here...

I've been using an i5-8250U for over 4 years, I've been quite happy with it and still use it today. It's in a different performance class to the 6700HQ though. It's a lot slower under sustained loads. How much slower will depend on the laptop but my i5 8250U would offer 69% of the performance of your 6700HQ. 11th gen is much more relevant today.

If you happen to see a reasonably priced AMD Ryzen 4000/5000 laptop then those are also worth considering.

Isn't that... a desktop CPU? I'm currently looking for laptops, or maybe I'm missing something and a mobile version of the 12100 does actually exist?

Yes it is a desktop CPU, it is very fast though for a quad core.

 

[Exploding PSU]

Tiger Lake is around 25% faster at the same clock speed so it should be quicker if they are running at similar clock speeds. The only note of caution is it depends on the cooling of the laptop and how its configured. If the CPU is allowed to run at it's base frequency under sustained loads then it's going to be quicker. The 11th gen CPU's are still quite widely available and it's not uncommon to find them discounted now so that's probably where I'd start my search.

The 12th gen is the latest so you won't get that discounted. If it's a big saving I would go for the i5-1135G7. The i3 is 4 threads but it's 2 cores/4 threads, there's no value in the i3. It won't age well, we are in an era of high core count CPU's, anything less than a quad core these days really shows it's age even in general use. That's not really a good place to start if you intend to keep the laptop for a while.

I've been using an i5-8250U for over 4 years, I've been quite happy with it and still use it today. It's in a different performance class to the 6700HQ though. It's a lot slower under sustained loads. How much slower will depend on the laptop but my i5 8250U would offer 69% of the performance of your 6700HQ. 11th gen is much more relevant today.

If you happen to see a reasonably priced AMD Ryzen 4000/5000 laptop then those are also worth considering.

Yes it is a desktop CPU, it is very fast though for a quad core.

Thanks for the insight. Sorry for the ridiculously late reply, life got in the way and all.

Alright, I think I'll target the i5-1135G7. But just a curious question though, is i3 really that different compared to the i5? I checked the i3-1115G4 out of curiosity on another site (let's just namedrop it, notebookchecknet) and it says the multicore performance to be comparable to the i5-8250U. I mean... that's not that bad, is it?

 

[Nighthawk117]

That's ok, there is a big difference between the two CPU's yes. They are virtually identical in single core performance but the i5-1135G7 has much faster multi-core performance.
Using Cinebench R23 for comparison, CPU-Monkey has double the multi-thread for the i5 and Notebookcheck has an average of 53% faster for the i5 over the i3.
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i3_1115g4-vs-intel_core_i5_1135g7

Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head

Intel Core i5-1135G7 vs Intel Core i3-1115G4 - Benchmarks, Tests and Comparisons

www.notebookcheck.net

There is some flexibility in how the CPU's can be configured by the manufacturer as they can be configured to run between 12W and 28W under sustained loads. If we were to assume both CPU's were running at the max configurable TDP of 28W then the i5-1135G7 would be around 60% faster than the i3-1115g4 so Notebookcheck's figure is probably a little more accurate.

Your correct the multi-threading performance of the i3-1115g4 is similar to the i5 8250U. It's not that it's a bad CPU, it's just it's not going to deliver the same experience as the i7 6700HQ. I also have a 7th gen i5 which runs at 3.1Ghz on both cores under sustained loads because it's been configured for a high TDP. My i5 8250U only run's at 1.8Ghz under sustained loads, the difference between the two is only 16% in multi-threaded performance. However when running multi-threaded games (both systems have similar Nvidia GPU's) like Halo Reach, the i5 8250U doesn't stutter and sustains roughly 60 FPS. The 7th gen dual core has very visible stuttering and the frame rate is all over the place. There is something to be said for just having 4 physical cores.

You can only afford what you can afford at the end of the day. There are worse things than owning a core i3-1115g4, however if you can afford the i5 you will probably find it better value in the long run.

 

[Exploding PSU]

That's ok, there is a big difference between the two CPU's yes. They are virtually identical in single core performance but the i5-1135G7 has much faster multi-core performance.
Using Cinebench R23 for comparison, CPU-Monkey has double the multi-thread for the i5 and Notebookcheck has an average of 53% faster for the i5 over the i3.
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i3_1115g4-vs-intel_core_i5_1135g7

Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head

Intel Core i5-1135G7 vs Intel Core i3-1115G4 - Benchmarks, Tests and Comparisons

www.notebookcheck.net

There is some flexibility in how the CPU's can be configured by the manufacturer as they can be configured to run between 12W and 28W under sustained loads. If we were to assume both CPU's were running at the max configurable TDP of 28W then the i5-1135G7 would be around 60% faster than the i3-1115g4 so Notebookcheck's figure is probably a little more accurate.

Your correct the multi-threading performance of the i3-1115g4 is similar to the i5 8250U. It's not that it's a bad CPU, it's just it's not going to deliver the same experience as the i7 6700HQ. I also have a 7th gen i5 which runs at 3.1Ghz on both cores under sustained loads because it's been configured for a high TDP. My i5 8250U only run's at 1.8Ghz under sustained loads, the difference between the two is only 16% in multi-threaded performance. However when running multi-threaded games (both systems have similar Nvidia GPU's) like Halo Reach, the i5 8250U doesn't stutter and sustains roughly 60 FPS. The 7th gen dual core has very visible stuttering and the frame rate is all over the place. There is something to be said for just having 4 physical cores.

You can only afford what you can afford at the end of the day. There are worse things than owning a core i3-1115g4, however if you can afford the i5 you will probably find it better value in the long run.

I see, I see. Thanks for clearing it up. Looks like it's the i5 for me then. I seriously don't know the exact requirement for that program, but I'd rather be on the safe side.