CPU Comparison
Intel Core i7-4750HQ vs Intel Core i7-4850HQ
A side-by-side comparison of specs, performance and value. The Intel Core i7-4750HQ is a high-end mobile processor launched in May 2013, notable for being one of the first to feature Intel's Crystalwell architecture with integrated eDRAM. Designed for premium laptops and mobile workstations, it boasts four cores and eight threads, handling intensive multitasking with ease. Operating at a base clock of 2.0 GHz and boosting up to 3.2 GHz, it prioritizes graphical prowess over raw CPU clock speed. The integration of Intel HD Graphics 5200, backed by 128MB of L4 eDRAM, revolutionized mobile integrated graphics, allowing thin laptops to game at 1080p without a discrete GPU. With a 47-watt TDP, it required substantial cooling but delivered unprecedented performance for its size. Although end-of-life, the 4750HQ remains a landmark chip, demonstrating Intel's commitment to pushing the boundaries of integrated graphics performance and setting the stage for future Iris Xe designs.
The Bottom Line
Overview & Launch
Specifications Compared
Performance Compared
Productivity
Strong quad-core performance, slightly limited by 2.0GHz base.
High turbo clocks ensure smooth performance.
Gaming
Excellent integrated graphics for older 1080p titles.
Excellent integrated graphics for 2013 titles.
Virtualization
Capable of running standard VMs.
Handles standard VMs well.
Efficiency
47W TDP is standard but outdated.
47W TDP is standard but outdated.
Specialized Performance
AI / ML
- No AI hardware
- No AI hardware
Content Creation
Gaming
- Iris Pro 5200 rivals entry-level discrete GPUs
- Great for 2013 games
- Iris Pro handles older 1080p games well
- Rivals entry-level discrete GPUs
Industry Impact
Best CPU by Use Case
Target Audience
Strengths & Weaknesses
Pros
- Iris Pro 5200 graphics
- 128MB L4 eDRAM
- Quad-core multitasking
- Good turbo boost headroom
Cons
- Low 2.0GHz base clock
- 47W TDP runs warm
- Soldered BGA package
- Outdated 22nm process
Pros
- High 3.5GHz turbo boost
- Iris Pro 5200 graphics
- 128MB L4 eDRAM
- Strong quad-core performance
Cons
- Soldered BGA package
- 47W TDP requires good cooling
- Outdated 22nm process
- End-of-life
Competitors & Alternatives
Intel Core i7-4750HQ
- AMD A10-5750MRival
Mobile
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core i7-4700HQRival
Mobile
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core i7-3635QMRival
Mobile
- AMD FX-7600PRival
Mobile
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core i7-4760HQRival
Mobile
- AMD Ryzen 7 5700UAlt
Modern alternative with excellent integrated graphics.
- Intel Core i7-1165G7Alt
Massive leap in mobile efficiency and iGPU.
- Alt
Modern premium laptop alternative.
Compare head-to-head
Intel Core i7-4850HQ
- AMD A10-5750MRival
Mobile
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core i7-4750HQRival
Mobile
- Intel Core i7-3840QMRival
Mobile
- AMD FX-7600PRival
Mobile
- Compare head-to-headIntel Core i7-4860HQRival
Mobile
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800HAlt
Modern mobile powerhouse alternative.
Modern alternative with massive multi-core gains.
Compare head-to-head- Alt
Modern creator laptop alternative.
Compare head-to-head
Our Verdict on Each
A groundbreaking mobile processor that brought console-class integrated graphics to thin laptops.
Best for: Finding a device with an Intel Core i7-4750HQ today is rare, as it was an expensive, premium part upon release. If you locate a used laptop with this chip, it is likely an older MacBook Pro or a high-end ultrabook. The integrated HD 5200 graphics still hold up surprisingly well for older games and media consumption, making it a decent option for a portable retro gaming machine. However, the 2.0 GHz base clock means CPU-heavy tasks will feel sluggish compared to modern processors. If you are repairing a vintage premium laptop, this CPU is essential for restoring functionality. Do not pay a premium price for a system with this processor today. Its value lies strictly in nostalgia or maintaining a legacy creative workstation. For modern efficiency and performance, even a low-end current-generation Celeron will outclass it in battery life and single-core speed. Approach it as a collector’s item or budget retro rig.
Read the full reviewA flagship 2013 mobile processor combining strong quad-core clocks with the graphical prowess of Iris Pro and eDRAM.
Best for: If you are sourcing an Intel Core i7-4850HQ today, it is likely for repairing a vintage premium laptop, such as a 2013 MacBook Pro. The processor is end-of-life, but its 3.5 GHz turbo and HD 5200 graphics still pack a punch for retro gaming and 1080p media editing. When evaluating a system with this chip, pay close attention to the thermal paste and fan condition; a 47W Haswell chip will throttle heavily if overheating. If you are performing a BGA replacement, ensure your soldering profile matches the 1364 ball grid array. For general consumers, do not purchase a laptop with this CPU as a primary machine. Modern budget processors offer vastly superior battery life and single-core performance. However, if you need a cheap, capable machine for running older creative software or acting as a localized media server, a functional 4850HQ system can still provide excellent value at the right price.
Read the full reviewFrequently Asked Questions
Which is better, Intel Core i7-4750HQ or Intel Core i7-4850HQ?
Based on our editorial ratings, the Intel Core i7-4850HQ comes out ahead with a score of 7.8/10. That said, the best choice depends on your workload — check the spec and performance breakdown above for gaming, productivity and efficiency differences.
Which is faster for gaming, Intel Core i7-4750HQ or Intel Core i7-4850HQ?
For gaming, the Intel Core i7-4850HQ leads with a gaming performance score of 75/100 among Intel Core i7-4750HQ and Intel Core i7-4850HQ.
Do Intel Core i7-4750HQ and Intel Core i7-4850HQ use the same socket?
Yes — all of these CPUs use the Intel BGA 1364 socket, so they share compatible motherboards.
Which is faster in multi-core benchmarks?
The Intel Core i7-4850HQ posts the highest multi-core benchmark score. Multi-core results: Intel Core i7-4750HQ (8,000), Intel Core i7-4850HQ (8,400). Benchmark figures are approximate and workload-dependent.