Intel Core i3-10300 vs Intel Core i7-7820HQ Comparison

The Intel Core i7-7820HQ and Intel Core i3-10300 are both 14 nm quad-core parts with eight threads and 8 MB of shared L3 cache, yet they target entirely different segments: the former is an end-of-life mobile processor from the Kaby Lake-H generation, while the latter is an active desktop chip from Comet Lake. The data reveals a consistent performance gap favoring the newer desktop part, despite the i7-7820HQ’s higher-tier branding. This comparison investigates whether the architectural and generational differences translate into a decisive victory for the i3-10300 across all measured workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-10300 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-7820HQ runs at 2.90 GHz. The i3-10300 also boosts higher, reaching 4.40 GHz compared to the i7-7820HQ’s 3.90 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i3-10300 has an average benchmark score of 1934, while the i7-7820HQ scores slightly higher at 1940. This places the i7-7820HQ 0.3% ahead of the i3-10300 in the nearestRivals data, a negligible difference that suggests near-identical overall performance.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the i3-10300?

A: The i3-10300 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and has a specified memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The i7-7820HQ supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but its memory bandwidth is not listed in the data.

Q: Which chip has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core i7-7820HQ has a TDP of 45 watts, which is lower than the i3-10300’s 62 watts. This difference reflects the i7-7820HQ’s mobile design, prioritizing power efficiency, whereas the i3-10300 is a desktop part with more thermal headroom.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, neither the Intel Core i7-7820HQ nor the Intel Core i3-10300 has an unlocked multiplier. Both are locked processors, meaning their clock speeds cannot be freely adjusted by the user.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-7820HQ was released on 2017-01-02, while the Intel Core i3-10300 came later on 2020-04-29. This three-year gap places the i3-10300 in a newer generation despite both using the 14 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental architectural distinction lies in their generations: the i7-7820HQ is built on Kaby Lake (specifically Kaby Lake-H), while the i3-10300 uses Comet Lake. Both are manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process, but Comet Lake represents a later refinement of that node, which partially explains the i3-10300’s higher clock speeds. The i7-7820HQ has a die size of 126 mm², whereas the i3-10300’s die size is not specified in the data.

Both processors share the same core and thread configuration: 4 cores and 8 threads. Their cache hierarchies are identical as well, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory support differs, however, with the i7-7820HQ accommodating both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3-10300 only supports DDR4. The i3-10300 also lists a specific memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, a figure absent for the i7-7820HQ.

The integrated graphics differ: the i7-7820HQ uses Intel HD Graphics 630, while the i3-10300 comes with UHD Graphics 630. Both are Gen 3 PCIe with 16 lanes from the CPU, and neither supports ECC memory. The sockets are distinct, with the i7-7820HQ using Intel BGA 1440 (a soldered mobile socket) and the i3-10300 using Intel Socket 1200 (a desktop LGA socket). The market segments reflect this, with the i7-7820HQ designated for mobile and the i3-10300 for desktop.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-10300 wins all six head-to-head tests, with no wins for the i7-7820HQ. The i3-10300’s victory margins range from 8.9% to 9.5% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. This consistent ~9% advantage suggests a clear performance hierarchy, despite both processors sharing identical core counts, thread counts, and L3 cache sizes.

The i7-7820HQ’s only statistical edge is its average benchmark score of 1940 versus 1934, a 0.3% difference that falls within noise and is contradicted by the direct head-to-head results. For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the data points squarely to the i3-10300. The i7-7820HQ’s lower TDP of 45 watts versus 62 watts makes it a more power-efficient choice, but this comes with a significant performance penalty. The i3-10300 is the better pick for anyone building a desktop system where performance is the primary metric, while the i7-7820HQ remains relevant only for mobile scenarios where its BGA 1440 socket and lower power draw are prerequisites.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-7820HQ | Intel Core i3-10300 |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 62 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Comet Lake |

| Codename | Kaby Lake-H | Comet Lake |

| Generation | Core i7 (Kaby Lake-H) | Core i3 (Comet Lake) |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | Not specified |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 42.7 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 630 | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2017-01-02 | 2020-04-29 |

| Launch MSRP | $378 | Not specified |

| Part Number | SR32N | SRH3J |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a clean sweep for the i3-10300, with every test showing a 9% or greater deficit for the i7-7820HQ. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-10300 scores 673 against 613 for the i7-7820HQ, a delta of -8.9% for the latter. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 95 versus 86, a 9.5% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 2808 for the i3-10300 and 2555 for the i7-7820HQ, representing a 9% deficit, while single-core is 396 versus 360, a 9.1% gap.

The newest Cinebench R23 test reinforces the trend. Multi-core results show the i3-10300 at 6687 points versus 6084 for the i7-7820HQ, another 9% difference. Single-core R23 is 944 versus 858, a 9.1% gap. The consistency is striking: across six tests, the deltaPct never strays far from 9%, indicating a uniform clock-speed-driven advantage for the i3-10300 rather than a workload-specific strength. The i7-7820HQ’s higher average benchmark score of 1940, compared to 1934 for the i3-10300, appears to be an artifact of different benchmark weighting, as the direct comparisons tell a different story.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-10300 wins in every measured benchmark category: multi-core and single-core performance across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.70/4.40 GHz versus 2.90/3.90 GHz) translate into a consistent 9% performance advantage. This makes it the clear choice for desktop workloads like rendering, encoding, or any CPU-bound task where the i7-7820HQ falls behind by a measurable margin.

The Intel Core i7-7820HQ’s wins are not in raw performance but in efficiency and form factor. With a 45-watt TDP versus 62 watts, it draws less power, making it suitable for thermally constrained mobile systems. Its BGA 1440 socket is designed for laptops, whereas the i3-10300 requires a desktop Socket 1200 motherboard. The i7-7820HQ also supports DDR3 memory, offering flexibility for older systems, while the i3-10300 is limited to DDR4. For users with existing DDR3 modules or a need for a low-power mobile processor, the i7-7820HQ retains a niche, but the data shows no performance scenario where it outpaces the i3-10300.