Xeon W3520 vs Apple M1 Pro
Aggregate performance score
M1 Pro outperforms Xeon W3520 by a whopping 484% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 919 | 2278 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Apple M-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.38 |
| Designer | Apple | Intel |
| Manufacturer | no data | Intel |
| Architecture codename | no data | Bloomfield (2008−2010) |
| Release date | 18 October 2021 (4 years ago) | 30 March 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $404 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
M1 Pro and Xeon W3520 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 10 (Deca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 10 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.064 GHz | 2.66 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.22 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| L1 cache | 2.9 MB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 28 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 24 MB | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | no data | 263 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 68 °C |
| Number of transistors | 33700 Million | 731 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on M1 Pro and Xeon W3520 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | FCLGA1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 MB + 24 MB | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M1 Pro and Xeon W3520. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
Security technologies
M1 Pro and Xeon W3520 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by M1 Pro and Xeon W3520 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M1 Pro and Xeon W3520. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 24 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M1 Pro and Xeon W3520.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.76 | 1.67 |
| Recency | 18 October 2021 | 30 March 2009 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 4 |
| Threads | 10 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 130 Watt |
Apple M1 Pro has a 484.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 150% more physical cores and 25% more threads, a 800% more advanced lithography process, and 364.3% lower power consumption.
The Apple M1 Pro is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon W3520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 Pro is a notebook processor while Xeon W3520 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
