Intel Core i7-4760HQ

The Intel Core i7-4760HQ is a 2014-era mobile processor that, according to aggregate benchmark data, lands in the 40th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1549. This places it in a tightly contested performance tier where it sits within 0.7% of its nearest rivals, indicating that its overall compute capability is essentially equivalent to a cluster of desktop and server parts from different eras. The data shows a capable quad-core part with Hyper-Threading, but its age and mobile pedigree are evident in its modern workload scores.

Benchmark Performance

The i7-4760HQ's Cinebench scores reveal a processor that is competitive in its immediate class but falls behind modern mainstream parts. In Cinebench R23, the processor scores 5355 points in multi-core and 756 points in single-core. These figures, when compared to the broader benchmark landscape, place it in the 40th percentile, meaning it outperforms 40% of all recorded CPUs but is outclassed by the majority of newer hardware.

The average benchmark score of 1549 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals, with a delta of just -0.5% against both the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 and the Intel Core i3-8300. This tells a clear story: the i7-4760HQ delivers roughly the same aggregate performance as a modern quad-core i3 or a low-power Xeon. The data indicates a 0.6% gap behind the Intel Atom x7835RE (score 1558) and a 0.7% gap behind the AMD Opteron 6276 (score 1560). These deltas are within measurement noise, so the verdict is that all five processors are effectively tied in overall throughput.

Looking at the Cinebench progression, the multi-core scores scale as expected: 539 in R15, 2249 in R20, and 5355 in R23. The single-core scores show a similar linear progression, from 76 in R15 to 317 in R20 and 756 in R23. The ratio between single-core and multi-core performance is consistent, with multi-core scores roughly 7 times higher than single-core scores in each test, reflecting the 4-core/8-thread design without any unusual scaling anomalies.

Power and Thermals

The i7-4760HQ carries a 47-watt TDP, which classifies it as a standard-performance mobile processor for its generation. This TDP level sits above ultra-low-voltage parts but below the higher-power enthusiast mobile chips. The 47-watt figure implies that a capable dual-heatpipe cooling solution or a standard laptop cooling module is sufficient, rather than requiring an exotic vapor chamber or oversized heatsink.

The thermal design point is notable because it enables the 2.10 GHz base clock and 3.30 GHz boost clock. The data shows that this power envelope is sufficient to sustain those clocks under typical mobile workloads, but it does not allow for sustained all-core turbo operation in demanding sustained tasks. The 22 nm process node and 1,400 million transistors on a 264 mm² die mean the chip is relatively large for its power class, which helps explain why it needs that 47-watt envelope to reach its clock targets. For a laptop buyer, this TDP class typically translates to a thicker chassis with better airflow, not an ultrabook.

How It Compares

Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5: The i7-4760HQ trails this Xeon by 0.5% in average benchmark score, with both processors landing at 1549 versus 1557. The Xeon is a server-oriented part, yet the aggregate data shows no meaningful performance advantage over the mobile i7. In practical terms, the i7-4760HQ matches this Xeon in mixed workloads, making the Xeon's higher platform cost unjustifiable for raw compute.

Intel Core i3-8300: The i3-8300 edges out the i7-4760HQ by a scant 0.5%, scoring 1557 versus 1549. This is a significant finding because the i3-8300 is a 4-core/4-thread desktop part without Hyper-Threading, while the i7-4760HQ has 8 threads. The data suggests that the i7's older architecture and lower clock speeds negate its thread-count advantage, resulting in a statistical tie in average performance, though the i3 will pull ahead in single-thread-heavy applications.

Intel Atom x7835RE: The Atom x7835RE outscores the i7-4760HQ by 0.6%, reaching 1558. This is a low-power embedded processor, and its near-identical average score highlights how far low-power architectures have come. The i7-4760HQ only retains an advantage in specific multi-threaded scenarios, but the aggregate benchmark data shows the Atom matching it overall, which is a poor sign for the i7's efficiency.

AMD Opteron 6276: The Opteron 6276, an older server chip, leads the i7-4760HQ by 0.7% with a score of 1560. This is a 16-core part from AMD's Bulldozer era, and its average performance is essentially identical to the i7. The data indicates that the i7-4760HQ's 4 fast cores are competitive with the Opteron's many slower cores in aggregate, but the Opteron will dominate in heavily parallel workloads.

Platform and Compatibility

The i7-4760HQ is built on the Haswell architecture with the Crystalwell codename, and it uses the Intel BGA 1364 socket. This is a soldered mobile socket, meaning the processor is not upgradeable or replaceable. The platform supports DDR3 memory via a dual-channel interface, with a maximum memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. This bandwidth figure is a bottleneck for modern workloads, as newer platforms offer substantially more memory throughput.

The processor provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, which is adequate for a single discrete GPU in a laptop. The integrated graphics is Intel HD 5200, which is the Iris Pro-class GPU from that era. ECC memory is not supported. The production status is end-of-life, and the release date is January 31, 2014, meaning there is no forward upgrade path within this socket. Users are locked to this specific chip and its DDR3 memory standard.

FAQ

Q: Is the Intel Core i7-4760HQ good for gaming?

A: Benchmark results show the processor sits in the 40th percentile overall. In single-core Cinebench R23, it scores 756 points, which is modest by modern standards. For gaming, the data suggests it can handle older titles and esports, but newer CPU-heavy games will likely be bottlenecked, especially given the 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth limit.

Q: How does it compare to a modern Core i3?

A: The average benchmark score of 1549 is 0.5% behind the Intel Core i3-8300, which scores 1557. Despite having more threads (8 vs 4), the older architecture and lower clocks mean the i7-4760HQ is statistically tied with a modern i3 in aggregate performance.

Q: What memory does it support?

A: It supports DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration, providing 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. This is a significant limitation for modern applications that benefit from higher memory speeds.

Q: Can I upgrade this processor?

A: No. The processor uses the Intel BGA 1364 socket, which is a ball-grid array soldered directly to the motherboard. It is not socketed, so it cannot be removed or replaced. The production status is end-of-life, so no future upgrades are available on this platform.

Q: What is the thermal design power?

A: The TDP is 47 watts. This is a moderate power draw for a mobile processor, requiring a standard laptop cooling solution rather than an ultra-thin passive design. It allows for a 2.10 GHz base clock and 3.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: Does it have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 5200 integrated graphics. This is the Iris Pro-class GPU from the Haswell generation, which was notable for its performance at the time but is now outdated for modern gaming or graphics workloads.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The benchmark data reveals a processor that is disproportionately strong in multi-threaded tasks relative to its single-thread performance. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 5355, while the single-core score is 756. This yields a multi-to-single ratio of 7.08, which is higher than the theoretical 8x for perfect scaling, indicating some efficiency losses in multi-threading but still showing strong parallel utilization.

The single-core score of 756 in R23 places it firmly in the low end of modern desktop processors. For real-world workloads, this means that applications relying heavily on a single thread — such as many older games, spreadsheet calculations, or light web browsing — will feel sluggish. The 2.10 GHz base clock and 3.30 GHz boost clock are simply not high enough to compete with modern chips that boost above 4 GHz.

In contrast, the multi-core score of 5355 shows that the 8 threads do provide meaningful throughput for parallel tasks. Video encoding, 3D rendering, and compilation workloads will benefit from this multi-threaded capability, though the absolute score is still below what a modern 6-core or 8-core laptop chip would achieve. The data indicates a processor that is best suited for batch multi-threaded jobs rather than interactive single-threaded responsiveness.

Who Should Consider It

Given the 40th percentile standing and the near-tie with the Intel Core i3-8300 and Intel Atom x7835RE, this processor is only suitable for specific legacy use cases. For gaming, the data is unfavorable: the single-core score of 756 in Cinebench R23 is too low for modern AAA titles, and the 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth will constrain GPU performance. It would be adequate only for light or older games.

For content creation, the multi-core score of 5355 in Cinebench R23 indicates it can handle occasional video rendering or photo batch processing, but it will be significantly slower than any modern laptop CPU. The 8 threads help, but the overall throughput is comparable to a low-end desktop i3 from several years ago. Users performing occasional renders on a legacy laptop could manage, but it is not a productive primary machine.

For office and productivity workloads, the processor is adequate for word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing, provided the tasks are not CPU-intensive. The single-core performance, while low, is sufficient for basic interactive use. However, the end-of-life status, BGA 1364 socket, and DDR3 memory support mean that any system using this chip is old and lacks upgrade potential. The only sensible consideration is a user who already owns such a laptop and needs to continue using it for basic tasks without performance expectations. New buyers should avoid it entirely based on the benchmark data.