Starting with the specs. The processor clocks at between 2.4 and 4.1 GHz (4 with 4 cores) and can execute up to eight threads simultaneously thanks to Hyper-Threading. The integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 iGPU is supposed to offer a slightly higher performance as its clock rate has been increased by 50 MHz. VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds. Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favourite CPU. Intel i5-9300H vs i7-9750H - Laptop CPU Comparison and Benchmarks JT 18 April 2020 Let’s find out what the differences are between the Intel i5-9300H and i7-9750H laptop processors. This is about what you’d expect, given the i7 has 50% more cores, and the single core turbo boost speed is almost 10% faster than the i5. According to Intel, the CPU is manufactured in an improved 14nm (14nm++) process. You can rate both processors yourself. According to Intel, the CPU is manufactured in an improved 14nm (14nm++) process. Another benchmark that renders out a scene with the processor, slightly less of a difference here, but these rendering tests smash all cores well with load, so the i7 was able to complete the task 45% faster than the i5. The Intel Core i5-9300H is a fast processor for laptops with four cores based on the Coffee Lake architecture (2019 Refresh, CFL-HR). On average over these tests, the Intel i7-9750H was 37% faster than the i5-9300H. Recomendaciones y comentarios. Compared to the predecessor, the Core i5-8300H from 2018, the 9300H is clocked slightly higher (+100 MHz CPU, +50 MHz GPU). The integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 iGPU is supposed to offer a slightly higher performance as its clock rate has been increased by 50 MHz. Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-9750H and Core i5-9300H. If we take in mind only the pure performance output – the Core i7-9750H is the clear winner – it is nearly 50% better than the Core i5-9300H. GeekBench was able to score 9% faster in single core performance with the i7, and 39% faster when it came to multicore, so the workloads this runs aren’t quite as core efficient as many of those rendering tasks we saw hit 50% higher speeds. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology. Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-9750H and Core i5-9300H. The temperatures were actually cooler with the i7 which I wasn’t expecting, both chips have the same power limit. However, the Core i7-9750H has six cores (twelve threads), while the Core i5-9300H is equipped with four cores (eight threads). My guess is the low setting preset must be more CPU bound compared to the others, which is why the i7 was almost 22% faster here. Expectedly, the Core i7-9750H obliviated its competitor in the synthetic benchmarks. Unlike most other games, I’ve actually found the gap to widen as we step up to higher setting levels. Let's see how good Core i7-9750H and Core i5-9300H are for gaming compared with game system requirements. Will the 6 cores be of use when gaming, or am I better off just spending less on a quad core 9300h? Call of Duty Modern Warfare was also tested with maximum or minimum settings, and again the results were almost identical at minimum, however interestingly the i5 was actually slightly ahead at ultra, granted it’s only 1 FPS, which I’d say is basically margin of error, even though this is the average of 3 test runs. At lowest settings, the i7 was just 3% faster than the i5. In terms of price differences, you could get an Acer Helios 300 with i7 for around $1100 USD, or the i5 model with the same 1660 Ti for $900 USD, granted it does seem to have half the memory. The results were quite close here, at ultra settings the i7 was only 1% ahead, which is honestly kind of margin of error ranges anyway. Both laptops have the same sized battery, and we can see the i5 was lasting longer in these tests, though to be fair, it’s hard to compare as the panel is also of lower quality so doesn’t get quite as bright even when at the same brightness percentage which may affect results. Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i7-9750H and Core i5-9300H integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces. Outside of gaming, paying 16% more money for 50% more cores is absolutely worth it, on average in the applications tested there was 37% higher performance to be had, so it depends more on if your workload is multicore heavy than anything else. share. The Intel Core i5-9300H is a fast processor for laptops with four cores based on the Coffee Lake architecture (2019 Refresh, CFL-HR). The Intel Core i5-9300H should perform similar as the older Core i7-7920HQ (3.1 - 4.1 GHz). eight cores for the high end versions) and the improved 14nm process (14nm++ according to Intel). Apex Legends was tested by running through the same section of the map on both laptops. At high and medium setting presets the performance was essentially identical, but with low settings for some reason the i7 saw a nice improvement. Moreover, the Core i7-9750H has 12 MB of Cache, whereas the Core i5-9300H is equipped with 8 MB. Compared to the predecessor, the Core i7-8750H, the 9750H offers improved clock rates and more L3 cache. I’ve got the i5-9300H shown by the red bar on the bottom, and the i7-9750H shown by the purple bar on top, and I’ve tested all setting levels, which are noted on the left. Aquí puede ver la calificación del procesador por parte de los usuarios, así como también dar su calificación. Single-core performance has not improved since its Kaby Lake predecessor. As we saw throughout the games, there was generally a larger difference with the lowest possible settings, as we’re more CPU bound here. Found an error? Intel Core i5-9300H remove The Intel Core i5-9300H is a fast processor for laptops with four cores based on the Coffee Lake architecture (2019 Refresh, CFL-HR). Intel Core i5-9300H vs Intel Core i7-9750H: 11. You can check out the full specs of the Intel Core i7-9750H and the Intel Core i5-9300H. Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11), - CB R15 + R20 + 7-Zip + X265 + Blender + 3DM11 CPU, Dual-Channel DDR4 Memory Controller, HyperThreading, AVX, AVX2, Quick Sync, Virtualization, AES-NI. There was a 4% higher average FPS at max settings with the i7, which doesn't sound like much but for context makes it the 3rd biggest gain out of all 15 titles tested, granted the 1% lows were nicely improved at epic at ultra, though at the same time the i5 was ahead at high with minor change at medium and low. At ultimate, the i7 was just 2% faster than the i5, but at low settings it was just under 16% faster. We do expect a performance improvement, but as a low-end solution it will probably only display current games smoothly at reduced details - if at all. Well, that’s a good question that we will try to answer. Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested using the games benchmark, the i7 is ahead at the lower setting presets, 4% faster than the i5 at low settings, then at maximum where we’re presumably less CPU bound it’s now just 1% faster with the same 1% low performance. Intel specifies the TDP with 45 watts and therefore the i5 is only suited for big laptops with good cooling solutions. The faster Coffee Lake CPUs, like the Core i7-8750H/9750H offers two additional cores and is therefore up to 50% faster in multithreaded benchmarks. Tech Support. Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2. These parameters indirectly say of Core i7-9750H and Core i5-9300H performance, but for precise assessment you have to … Core i7-9750H and Core i5-9300H quantitative parameters such as cores and threads number, clocks, manufacturing process, cache size and multiplier lock state. The processor clocks at between 2.6 and 4.5 GHz (4 GHz with 6 cores) and can execute up to twelve threads simultaneously thanks to Hyper-Threading. I’ve got the quad core i5 down the bottom, and the six core i7 up top. Notice: We do not take any responsibility for the data shown at our site. According to Intel, the CPU is manufactured in an improved 14nm (14nm++) process. Single-core performance has not improved since its Kaby Lake predecessor. This time the i7 was a larger 9.5% ahead when it came to single core performance, and a much larger 62% faster at multicore. The i7 was ahead in all tests, although by the time we step up to highest settings the result was identical, likely as we’re more GPU bound at this stage. Intel i7-9750H vs Ryzen 7 3750H - Laptop CPU Comparison and Benchmarks, Intel i5-9300H vs Ryzen 7 3750H - Laptop CPU Comparison and Benchmarks, 4900HS vs 9980HK vs 9750H vs 3750H vs 9300H - CPU Comparison. The comparison should be pretty apples to apples given both laptops have the same cooling design. The i7 has a 400MHz higher single core turbo boost speed, however when all cores are active they both max out at 4GHz. In this test the i7 was just 3% faster in average FPS at ultra settings, and about the same at low too. The two chips are similar in 1% low performance in all but epic settings, where the i7 saw a large 23% improvement. Created at Sun, 25 Oct 2020 12:05:31 +0100 +0.001s ... 0.001s, #7 getting avg benchmarks for device 11352 +0.003s ... 0.02s, #8 got single benchmarks 11352 +0.152s ... 0.172s, #9 getting avg benchmarks for device 11356 +0s ... 0.172s, #10 got single benchmarks 11356 +0s ... 0.172s, #11 getting avg benchmarks for device 9578 +0s ... 0.172s, #12 got single benchmarks 9578 +0s ... 0.172s, #13 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.172s, #14 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.016s ... 0.188s, #15 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.002s ... 0.19s, #16 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.005s ... 0.195s, #17 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0s ... 0.196s, #18 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.001s ... 0.197s, #19 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0s ... 0.197s, #20 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.001s ... 0.199s, #21 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0s ... 0.199s, #22 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.001s ... 0.201s, #23 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0s ... 0.201s, #24 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.021s ... 0.222s, #25 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.034s ... 0.256s, #26 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.002s ... 0.258s, #27 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.002s ... 0.26s, #28 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.002s ... 0.263s, #29 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.011s ... 0.274s, #30 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.002s ... 0.276s, #31 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.013s ... 0.289s, #32 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0s ... 0.289s, #33 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0.001s ... 0.29s, #34 No cached benchmark found, getting uncached values +0s ... 0.291s, #35 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.291s.