Intel Core i7-9750HF vs Intel Core i9-8950HK Comparison

The Intel Core i7-9750HF and Intel Core i9-8950HK are two 6-core, 12-thread mobile processors from Intel’s Coffee Lake family, both aimed at high-performance laptops. Despite sharing a core count and architecture, the benchmark data reveals a fascinating split: the i9-8950HK edges ahead in every Cinebench test, while the i7-9750HF posts surprising wins in Geekbench. This head-to-head analysis digs into the numbers to see which chip actually delivers better performance, and where each one’s strengths lie.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the complete sweep by the Intel Core i9-8950HK across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i9-8950HK scores 884 against the i7-9750HF’s 876, a margin of 0.9%. The single-core R15 result is similarly tight, with 124 versus 123, a 0.8% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the i9-8950HK widens its lead slightly: 3686 versus 3652 in multicore (0.9% ahead) and 520 versus 515 in single-core (1% ahead). The trend continues in Cinebench R23, where the i9-8950HK posts 8777 versus 8696 in multicore and 1239 versus 1227 in single-core, both roughly 1% higher. These are consistent, if narrow, victories for the i9-8950HK in rendering workloads.

The story flips dramatically in Geekbench, where the Intel Core i7-9750HF takes decisive wins. In Geekbench multicore, the i7-9750HF scores 4844 against the i9-8950HK’s 4577, a substantial 5.8% advantage. The single-core Geekbench result also favors the i7-9750HF, with 1365 versus 1318, a 3.6% lead. This is a curious divergence—the i9-8950HK wins every Cinebench test, yet loses both Geekbench tests by a significant margin. The data suggests these two benchmarks measure different aspects of performance, or that the i7-9750HF’s architecture is better optimized for the specific workloads Geekbench simulates.

Looking at the broader picture, the i9-8950HK’s wins are all within 1%, making them marginal in practical terms. Meanwhile, the i7-9750HF’s Geekbench victories are 3.6% and 5.8%, which are much more meaningful gaps. The average benchmark scores reflect this mixed bag: the i7-9750HF averages 2662 points, while the i9-8950HK averages 2641. That puts the i7-9750HF at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, versus the i9-8950HK’s 49th percentile. In terms of nearest rivals, the i7-9750HF sits within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-7740X, while the i9-8950HK is tied with the Intel Core i7-5820K. The data shows two chips that are nearly identical in aggregate, but with distinct performance profiles depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of which chip excels in which scenarios. The Intel Core i9-8950HK is the winner in all Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multicore. Cinebench is a rendering benchmark that stresses CPU cores with 3D scene rendering, so the i9-8950HK’s consistent edge there suggests it has a slight advantage in heavily threaded creative workloads like video rendering or 3D modeling. The margins are small, but they are present across every version of the test, indicating a reliable, if modest, performance lead.

On the other hand, the Intel Core i7-9750HF dominates Geekbench, which is a more general-purpose benchmark that tests a wider range of tasks including encryption, image processing, and machine learning. The i7-9750HF’s 5.8% multicore and 3.6% single-core wins here are substantial, suggesting it may handle everyday productivity tasks, web browsing, and office applications more effectively. This is counterintuitive given the i9-8950HK’s higher clock speeds, but the data is unambiguous: in Geekbench’s synthetic scenarios, the i7-9750HF is the better performer.

For users who prioritize rendering or content creation, the i9-8950HK’s consistent Cinebench wins make it the safer choice, even if the gains are under 1%. For those who care about general system responsiveness and a broader mix of workloads, the i7-9750HF’s Geekbench performance is more compelling. The i9-8950HK’s wins number six out of eight tests, but the two losses are by a larger margin than any of its victories. This suggests the i7-9750HF is not simply slower—it is better at certain types of tasks, and the i9-8950HK’s advantage is more about consistency than raw power.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-9750HF has an average benchmark score of 2662, which is higher than the Intel Core i9-8950HK’s 2641, despite the i9-8950HK winning more head-to-head tests.

Q: How much faster is the i9-8950HK in Cinebench R20 multicore?

A: The i9-8950HK scores 3686 in Cinebench R20 multicore, which is 0.9% ahead of the i7-9750HF’s 3652.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The largest difference is in Geekbench multicore, where the i7-9750HF scores 4844 versus the i9-8950HK’s 4577, giving the i7-9750HF a 5.8% lead.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i7-9750HF and Intel Core i9-8950HK have 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i9-8950HK has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core i7-9750HF’s 4.50 GHz.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: They are close, with the i7-9750HF at the 50th percentile and the i9-8950HK at the 49th percentile of all CPUs.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several core specifications, but key differences emerge in clock speeds, power, and features. Both have 6 cores and 12 threads, a 14 nm process node, a 149 mm² die size, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The L1 and L2 caches are also identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively. Both support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, though the i9-8950HK does not list a memory bus or bandwidth figure in the data, while the i7-9750HF specifies 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth.

The base clock speeds differ, with the i9-8950HK starting at 2.90 GHz compared to the i7-9750HF’s 2.60 GHz. The boost clocks also favor the i9-8950HK, which reaches 4.70 GHz versus the i7-9750HF’s 4.50 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) is a major divergence: the i9-8950HK is rated at 95 watts, while the i7-9750HF comes in at 45 watts. This suggests the i9-8950HK is designed for thicker, better-cooled laptops, while the i7-9750HF may be suitable for more portable systems.

The i9-8950HK has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be overclocked, whereas the i7-9750HF’s multiplier is locked. The i9-8950HK also integrates UHD 630 graphics, while the i7-9750HF lists no integrated graphics at all. Release dates differ by about a year, with the i9-8950HK launching on 2018-04-01 and the i7-9750HF on 2019-04-22. Both share the same socket (Intel BGA 1440) and are end-of-life products, with part numbers SRCKN for the i9-8950HK and SRG1T for the i7-9750HF.

Architecture Differences

At the architectural level, both processors are built on Intel’s Coffee Lake architecture, but they come from different variants. The i7-9750HF uses the Coffee Lake-HR codename, while the i9-8950HK uses Coffee Lake-H. The process node is identical at 14 nm, and both are manufactured by Intel with the same die size of 149 mm². The cache hierarchy is the same: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3.

The key architectural difference lies in the feature set. The i9-8950HK includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, making it a complete package for systems that do not want a discrete GPU. The i7-9750HF has no integrated graphics, which may indicate it is intended for laptops with a mandatory discrete GPU. The i9-8950HK’s unlocked multiplier is another architectural distinction, allowing enthusiasts to push clock speeds beyond the stock 4.70 GHz boost. This is paired with a much higher 95-watt TDP, suggesting the i9-8950HK is designed to sustain higher power draw for longer periods under load. The i7-9750HF’s 45-watt TDP indicates a more power-efficient design, which could lead to better battery life or thinner chassis designs. The memory support is the same DDR4 standard, but the i7-9750HF explicitly lists dual-channel support and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the i9-8950HK leaves these fields unspecified. Both chips are end-of-life, with the i9-8950HK being the older release.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture for potential buyers. If the priority is rendering performance—as measured by Cinebench—the Intel Core i9-8950HK is the pick, as it wins all six Cinebench tests, albeit by margins of 1% or less. Its higher base and boost clocks, combined with a 95-watt TDP and unlocked multiplier, give it a theoretical ceiling that the i7-9750HF cannot match, especially for overclocking enthusiasts. The integrated UHD 630 graphics also make it a more versatile option for systems without a discrete GPU.

However, the Intel Core i7-9750HF is not a clear loser. Its Geekbench wins are decisive, with a 5.8% multicore and 3.6% single-core advantage over the i9-8950HK. This suggests it handles a broader range of everyday tasks more efficiently, possibly due to its lower TDP or architectural refinements in the newer Coffee Lake-HR variant. Its higher average benchmark score (2662 versus 2641) and better percentile ranking (50th versus 49th) reinforce this. For users who want a well-rounded performer in general productivity, web work, and office applications, the i7-9750HF may be the smarter choice, especially given its lower power draw.

Ultimately, the choice hinges on workload. The i9-8950HK is the consistent winner in rendering and creative suites, while the i7-9750HF takes the crown in general-purpose Geekbench tasks. The i9-8950HK offers overclocking headroom and integrated graphics, but at the cost of much higher power consumption. The i7-9750HF is more efficient and faster in Geekbench, but lacks integrated graphics and an unlocked multiplier. The data does not declare one chip the outright winner—it shows two processors with different strengths, and the right pick depends on whether the user values Cinebench-style rendering or Geekbench-style versatility.