Intel Core i7-11370H Review: Quad-Cores Aren't Enough in 2021

Watzupken

Posts: 315   +302
"The 11370H being a power overclocked U-series part isn’t cutting it here. I think Intel’s attempt at making a low-power CPU into an H-series part for gaming laptops has failed.

The key takeaway here is that the Core i7-11370H is one CPU you should avoid."

This verdict is like a kick in Intel's face. While its brutal, but I think Intel deserves it. At a time where competitors are smoking them with more cores, Intel adamantly sticks to their stance of offering less to their customers. The tactic of deliberately limiting consumers to 4 cores is no longer viable with strong competition. Even though they still offers strong single core performance, but its clear that software are starting to adopt better multicore support and single core performance in itself will not cut it. The fact that Intel labeled this as an i7 likely means its not that cheap. This to me should be labeled as an i3.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,666   +2,797
Interesting read, thanks.

There is one thing I am curious about: For how long does the CPU boost to 60W ? That would be interesting to know wrt some of the shorter tests, especially when compared to the other tested CPUs‘ boost wattage and duration (which I am also curious about - maybe a chart showing boost behavior would be an idea?).
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,604   +1,712
Bad form from Intel.

All we can do is wait for Intel to get their affairs in order and release competitive 7nm silicon, because AMD mobile has been little to no threat in the mobile market. 4000 and 5000 series laptops are few and far between to compete on a large scale. Being better means absolutely nothing if you can't buy the stuff. Launching products you can't buy also means nothing.
 

Hardware Geek

Posts: 380   +432
The only reason I can think of to call this an i7 is to trick customers into thinking the cpu is significantly faster than it actually is. There is simply no way that should be an i7 in 2021.
 

TheBigFatClown

Posts: 967   +389
Incredibly well written article. There is one correction to be addressed. The Ryzen 5 4600H is not a quad-core CPU as stated in the article. It is 6 cores and 12 threads.

My last 3 CPU purchases have been AMD. This article simply validates my choices as being the right ones. Although, ASUS bears some of the responsibility of these silly decisions as well. I really like the ASUS brand but sometimes I think they make bad choices in the name of delivering great products at the cheapest prices.
 
I think where this lower core count higher clock chip will excel is in esports titles like CSGO. With sustained clocks that high you could actually push games like CSGO at over 240fps sustained on that 240hz panel. Otherwise yeah it's pretty pointless even if it can keep up in some titles quad cores becoming obsolete for many AAA titles. I know pairing it with a 3070 at that point is overkill then, but where you're lacking in CPU horsepower maybe you can use the GPU for encoding for streaming? So for an on the go esports streamer/pro might make sense? That's a very niche market. Even then, pairing that CPU with those higher power limits and sustained clocks with something like a 3050-to-3060 tier card makes more sense for that "esports" tailored market where most the games love high CPU frequency and IPC for sustained high frame rates.
 

mbk34

Posts: 199   +128
It's a shame we can't automatically predict the performance from the number of cores on a processor, whether it has hyperthreading, frequency (including turbo and IPC), cache size, cost etc. That way we could easily group processors together to both predict performance and their likely market. This could be done for general performance metrics but also specific applications and games. It would also allow us to see how good value a processor is and perhaps what processors we need.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,661   +4,134
It's a shame we can't automatically predict the performance from the number of cores on a processor, whether it has hyperthreading, frequency (including turbo and IPC), cache size, cost etc. That way we could easily group processors together to both predict performance and their likely market. This could be done for general performance metrics but also specific applications and games. It would also allow us to see how good value a processor is and perhaps what processors we need.
You can, if you are paying attention to the market at all. Quad cores are insufficient for gaming, this is something the market and the community have both concluded for several years now. Any intel chip is going to be slightly faster at the same clock speed then zen 2 in games, and slower then zen 3 by about the same margin.

Also, we have all those metrics. They're called benchmarks. You can see them above. Feel free to collate them if you wish.
 

Cod3nflame

Posts: 14   +15
This is a really dumb and biased headline. Quad cores are definitely more than enough for your average user. I work in an enterprise environment and the introduction of quad cores into laptops in the office has increased performance substantially for users. So much so they even notice. You’re running rendering applications on a CPU meant to run office apps and other single core apps from a laptop.. -_- c’mon now let’s be real people.
 

Michael7

Posts: 68   +56
Great article, well done.

Intel has been OUTRIGHT lying to consumers with the i7 mobile CPU line for many years. They have produced many fake i7's that should have been branded i3 or i5 in my opinion.
That is why I never even considered buying i7 branded CPU. They cost a lot more and in majority of cases are not faster than i5. i7 and now i9 brand is just a deceptive way of fooling customers into buying a more expensive CPU with little real-world performance gain in return.
 

mbk34

Posts: 199   +128
You can, if ...
I can't. I don't have the time for such stuff but, if you have the data and wanted an interesting machine learning project, then I suspect it might be fairly straightforward. The results would be fascinating and also quite useful to fabricators like Intel so they know whether it's worth producing such a chip and to hardware manufacturers so they know whether it's worth buying these processors. Also useful to buyers for the same reasons.
 

Michael7

Posts: 68   +56
This is a really dumb and biased headline. Quad cores are definitely more than enough for your average user. I work in an enterprise environment and the introduction of quad cores into laptops in the office has increased performance substantially for users. So much so they even notice. You’re running rendering applications on a CPU meant to run office apps and other single core apps from a laptop.. -_- c’mon now let’s be real people.
Did you even read the article? Yes quad core is perfectly fine for an average user but i7 and now i9 is Intel's top-tier offering which should be of particular interest to gamers and heavy multitaskers/professionals. In this case the use of this CPU in a gaming-oriented laptop shows it's weakness when compared against Intel's previous gen and AMD CPUs. Given it's premium price and deceptive branding, this is a bad offering from Intel - you can get AMD 4000 or 5000 series equipped laptop for several hundred $ less that will get you better multithreaded and gaming performance. I agree that for average daily use you probably don't need anything better than quad core i5 Tiger Lake or Ryzen 4000/5000 series but this will likely be found in thinner, lighter and probably cheaper laptop forms (unless it's a flagship product with above average build quality and top notch display).
 
Last edited:

Gimp65

Posts: 37   +76
This is a really dumb and biased headline. Quad cores are definitely more than enough for your average user. I work in an enterprise environment and the introduction of quad cores into laptops in the office has increased performance substantially for users. So much so they even notice. You’re running rendering applications on a CPU meant to run office apps and other single core apps from a laptop.. -_- c’mon now let’s be real people.
Running a bunch of pretty normal office applications at work, some active directory, little bit of database and some browsing, this all runs better on our 6 core machine than the quad cores, both last years cpu gens. Quad cores isnt cutting it very well anymore. Also you gotta think a couple of years down the road when buying.
 

SixTymes

Posts: 155   +102
If Intel really wanted to catch up, the short story is, Intel should have skipped Tiger Lake altogether, and released Alder Lake as the 11th gen.
 

Makste

Posts: 143   +100
Intel’s own 8-core processors like the 10870H are a step above in performance, and the 11370H ends up about 20% slower than AMD’s last-generation Ryzen 5 4600H quad-core. It is faster than Tiger Lake U-series processors as expected.
[QUOTE\]
The Ryzen 5 4600H is a Hexa-core cpu
 
Hey guys last week I bought this computer : Acer Nitro 5 AN515-56 , 15.6" FHD, Intel®Core™ i7-11370H, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, GTX1650. I got actually baited by the cpu, I saw i7 eleven gen and I was hooked without even reading an article of it. I bought this to have a better pc overall and to run processes cuz my previous laptop sucks, not even ssd and 8 gb ram. Gaming wise I want to run Dota 2 and age of empires definitive edition in ultra definition, do you think it will be possible? Do you think at least that my gpu is way weaker than a rtx 3070 at least could work properly?

Also could I use this pc to stream without fps issues? (same games)
 
Last edited:

Michael7

Posts: 68   +56
What kind of question
Hey guys last week I bought this computer : Acer Nitro 5 AN515-56 , 15.6" FHD, Intel®Core™ i7-11370H, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, GTX1650. I got actually baited by the cpu, I saw i7 eleven gen and I was hooked without even reading an article of it. I bought this to have a better pc overall and to run processes cuz my previous laptop sucks, not even ssd and 8 gb ram. Gaming wise I want to run Dota 2 and age of empires definitive edition in ultra definition, do you think it will be possible? Do you think at least that my gpu is way weaker than a rtx 3070 at least could work properly?

Also could I use this pc to stream without fps issues? (same games)
What kind of question is this? If you already have this PC, why don't you run the games and see for yourself? Besides you should know that when it comes to gaming, GPU is far more important than a CPU. Almost any modern CPU can handle any game, which is not something you can say about any GPU. But yes, this GPU should have no problem running these games at FHD.
 
You won't understand how great this until you use the silent profile. I can play nearly every AAA game I've thrown at it (max settings) locked at 60fps. The fans are inaudible and it stays relatively cool (the profile limits CPU/GPU usage and locks framerates to 60fps).

I'm thrilled with mine.