Intel Core i7-11375H vs Intel Core i7-9850H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-11375H and Intel Core i7-9850H split their benchmark victories along a clear line: the newer Tiger Lake chip dominates rendering workloads and single-threaded tasks, while the older Coffee Lake part takes the Geekbench multi-core test. Out of the eight recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Core i7-11375H wins seven, leaving the Core i7-9850H with a single victory.

The Core i7-11375H is the pick for any workload that leans on Cinebench rendering. Its lead is consistent and narrow across the R15, R20, and R23 suites, with multicore deltas sitting at 6.5% and single-core deltas between 6.2% and 6.5%. In practical terms, the 11375H posts 9775 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 9182 for the 9850H, and 1380 in R23 single-core versus 1296. These are not overwhelming margins, but they are uniform, which suggests the 11375H simply executes Cinebench instructions more efficiently per clock.

The Core i7-9850H strikes back in Geekbench multicore, where it scores 6087 against 5383 for the 11375H, a delta of 11.6% in its favor. This is the largest single margin in either direction. Geekbench's multicore test scales with core count, and the 9850H has six physical cores and twelve threads, versus four cores and eight threads for the 11375H. If your workflow is Geekbench-sensitive and heavily threaded, the 9850H is the stronger choice.

Single-threaded performance is not close. The 11375H wins Geekbench single-core by 24.2%, scoring 1800 versus 1449. That is the biggest gap recorded in the entire comparison. For everyday responsiveness, web browsing, and lightly threaded applications, the 11375H is clearly ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and manufacturing nodes. The Core i7-11375H is built on Tiger Lake, Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core i7-9850H uses Coffee Lake on 14 nm. The die sizes are similar, 146.1 mm² for the 11375H and 149 mm² for the 9850H, but the transistor density and design priorities differ substantially.

Core counts diverge: the 11375H has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the 9850H has 6 cores and 12 threads. Cache layouts also differ. The 11375H allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The 9850H has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and the same 12 MB of shared L3. The 11375H's larger per-core L2 is a notable advantage for data reuse within a single core.

Clock speeds favor the newer chip. The 11375H has a 3.00 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The 9850H operates at 2.60 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. Despite the higher clocks, the 11375H is rated at 28 W TDP, while the 9850H carries a 45 W TDP. This means the 11375H delivers more performance per watt on paper, though the 9850H's extra cores likely contribute to its higher power envelope.

Memory bandwidth differs as well. The 11375H supports dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the 9850H also uses dual-channel DDR4 but at 42.7 GB/s. The PCIe interface is another generational leap: the 11375H offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 9850H is limited to Gen 3. Integrated graphics also differ, with the 11375H featuring Iris XE 96EU and the 9850H using UHD Graphics 630.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The 11375H uses Intel BGA 1449, the 9850H uses Intel BGA 1440. Production status also separates them: the 11375H is active, the 9850H is end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench series shows a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 11375H scores 985 against 925 for the 9850H, a 6.5% lead. Single-core R15 follows at 138 versus 130, a 6.2% edge. Moving to R20, the multicore gap remains 6.5% with scores of 4105 and 3856, and single-core is 579 versus 544, a 6.4% difference. R23 repeats the 6.5% multicore margin with 9775 against 9182, and single-core is 1380 versus 1296, again 6.5%. The consistency across all three Cinebench generations is striking. The 11375H does not lose ground as the test becomes more demanding; it holds its margin.

Geekbench tells a different story. Multicore favors the 9850H by 11.6%, with scores of 6087 and 5383. This is the only benchmark where the 9850H wins, and the margin is larger than any single Cinebench delta. The six-core configuration clearly pays off in Geekbench's parallel workload. However, Geekbench single-core reverses the result emphatically: 1800 for the 11375H versus 1449 for the 9850H, a 24.2% advantage. That is the largest delta in the entire dataset.

The benchmark data indicates that the 11375H is faster in every single-core test, with margins ranging from 6.2% to 24.2%. In multicore tests, the 11375H wins all three Cinebench variants but loses Geekbench multicore. This suggests that Cinebench's threading model is less sensitive to core count than Geekbench's, or that the 11375H's higher clocks and newer architecture compensate for its fewer cores in Cinebench.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i7-11375H as the better processor for most tasks. It wins seven of eight benchmarks, including all single-core tests and all Cinebench multicore tests. Its 24.2% single-core Geekbench lead is decisive, and its 6.5% Cinebench multicore margins, achieved with two fewer cores, demonstrate a substantial per-core efficiency advantage.

The Core i7-9850H remains relevant only for workloads that mirror Geekbench multicore's scaling. Its 11.6% lead in that specific test is real and meaningful if your application is built around that benchmark's threading pattern. With six cores and twelve threads, it offers more raw parallelism, and its 45 W TDP reflects a design that prioritizes sustained multi-threaded throughput over efficiency.

For general use, rendering with Cinebench-based applications, or any single-threaded heavy task, the 11375H is the clear choice. It is faster, newer, and still active in production. The 9850H is end-of-life, and its only win is a single multicore test. Unless your software is specifically Geekbench-heavy and fully utilizes six cores, the 11375H is the stronger recommendation.

The 11375H also offers modern platform features: PCIe Gen 4, higher memory bandwidth, and a more capable integrated GPU. These are qualitative advantages that reinforce its position. The 9850H does have the core count advantage, but the benchmark results show that advantage does not translate into Cinebench victories.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i7-11375H wins 7 of 8 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core i7-9850H wins 1.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Geekbench single-core, the 11375H scores 1800 versus 1449 for the 9850H, a 24.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is 1380 versus 1296, a 6.5% lead.

Q: Does the 9850H win any multicore test?

A: Yes, Geekbench multicore. The 9850H scores 6087 against 5383 for the 11375H, an 11.6% lead. It loses all three Cinebench multicore tests.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The 11375H has 4 cores and 8 threads. The 9850H has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The 11375H has a 3.00 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost. The 9850H has a 2.60 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 11375H is rated at 28 W, while the 9850H is rated at 45 W.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i7-11375H | Intel Core i7-9850H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1449 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Tiger Lake | Coffee Lake |

| Codename | Tiger Lake-H | Coffee Lake-HR |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 146.1 mm² | 149 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris XE 96EU | UHD Graphics 630 |

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

| Release Date | 2021-01-10 | 2019-04-22 |

| Part Number | SRKH4 | SRFCN |