Summary
- The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is a powerful 8-core processor built on the Zen 4 architecture.
- On the other hand, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ is a 4-core processor built on the Kaby Lake architecture.
- However, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ remains a viable option for users on a tighter budget or those who primarily need a CPU for less demanding tasks.
Choosing the right CPU for your laptop can be a daunting task, especially when faced with a vast array of options. Today, we’ll delve into a comparison between two popular processors: the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS and the Intel Core i7-7820HQ. This head-to-head analysis will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each CPU, helping you make an informed decision based on your specific needs and budget.
A Look at the Contenders: AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS and Intel Core i7-7820HQ
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is a powerful 8-core processor built on the Zen 4 architecture. It boasts a base clock speed of 3.3 GHz, a boost clock speed of 4.8 GHz, and a TDP of 35W. This CPU is designed for thin and light laptops, offering impressive performance while maintaining excellent battery life.
On the other hand, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ is a 4-core processor built on the Kaby Lake architecture. It has a base clock speed of 2.9 GHz, a boost clock speed of 3.9 GHz, and a TDP of 45W. This CPU was primarily designed for gaming laptops and workstations, delivering solid performance for demanding tasks.
Performance: A Head-to-Head Comparison
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS clearly outperforms the Intel Core i7-7820HQ in most benchmarks. This is primarily due to the Ryzen 7 8845HS’s newer Zen 4 architecture, which offers significant improvements in performance per core and overall efficiency. In multi-threaded workloads like video editing, 3D rendering, and gaming, the Ryzen 7 8845HS delivers a noticeable advantage.
While the Intel Core i7-7820HQ is still capable of handling demanding tasks, its 4-core design falls short compared to the 8-core Ryzen 7 8845HS. This difference becomes more pronounced in scenarios where multiple applications are running simultaneously.
Efficiency: Power Consumption and Battery Life
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS shines in terms of energy efficiency. Its 35W TDP is significantly lower than the Intel Core i7-7820HQ’s 45W TDP, resulting in lower power consumption and extended battery life. This translates to longer usage time on a single charge, making the Ryzen 7 8845HS ideal for mobile users.
The Intel Core i7-7820HQ, despite its older architecture, can still deliver decent battery life in certain laptops. However, its higher power consumption may lead to shorter battery life compared to the Ryzen 7 8845HS.
Gaming Performance: A Battle for Frames
Both CPUs are capable of handling modern games, but the Ryzen 7 8845HS offers a noticeable advantage in terms of frame rates. Its higher core count and superior performance per core translate to smoother gameplay, especially in demanding titles.
The Intel Core i7-7820HQ, while still capable of delivering playable frame rates, may struggle to maintain high frame rates in demanding games, especially at higher resolutions. However, it’s worth noting that gaming performance also depends heavily on the graphics card, so the overall gaming experience can vary based on the specific laptop configuration.
Features and Technologies: Comparing the Latest Innovations
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS comes equipped with a range of advanced features, including support for PCIe 5.0, DDR5 memory, and the latest AMD FreeSync technology. These features contribute to a smoother and more responsive user experience.
The Intel Core i7-7820HQ, being an older processor, lacks support for these newer technologies. It supports PCIe 3.0, DDR4 memory, and older versions of Intel’s integrated graphics. While these technologies are still functional, they may not provide the same level of performance and efficiency as their newer counterparts.
The Verdict: Choosing the Right CPU for Your Needs
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS emerges as the clear winner in this comparison. Its superior performance, efficiency, and support for the latest technologies make it an excellent choice for users who prioritize power, battery life, and future-proofing.
However, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ remains a viable option for users on a tighter budget or those who primarily need a CPU for less demanding tasks. Its performance is still respectable for everyday use, and its lower price point might be appealing to budget-conscious buyers.
The Final Decision: A Guided Path to Your Perfect CPU
Ultimately, the best CPU for you depends on your individual needs and priorities. If you’re looking for a powerful and efficient processor for demanding tasks, the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is the clear choice. However, if you’re on a budget and your needs are less intensive, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ might be a suitable alternative.
Answers to Your Questions
Q1: Which CPU is better for gaming?
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS offers better gaming performance thanks to its higher core count and superior performance per core. However, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ can still deliver playable frame rates in most games, especially at lower resolutions.
Q2: Which CPU is better for video editing?
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is the better choice for video editing due to its superior multi-threaded performance. Its 8 cores and higher clock speeds enable faster rendering times and smoother editing workflows.
Q3: Which CPU is more energy efficient?
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is significantly more energy efficient than the Intel Core i7-7820HQ. Its lower TDP and advanced power management features result in longer battery life and lower heat generation.
Q4: Which CPU is more affordable?
The Intel Core i7-7820HQ is generally more affordable than the AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS. This is due to its older architecture and the fact that it is no longer a current-generation processor.
Q5: Which CPU is better for multitasking?
The AMD Ryzen 7 8845HS is the better choice for multitasking due to its higher core count and superior performance per core. It can handle multiple applications running simultaneously without significant performance degradation.
