Apple M1 Pro vs Apple M3 Max 16-Core
Aggregate performance score
Apple M3 Max 16-Core outperforms Apple M1 Pro by a whopping 138% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Apple M1 Pro processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 186 | 708 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple M3 | Apple M-Series |
| Power efficiency | 31.28 | no data |
| Release date | 30 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 18 October 2021 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Apple M1 Pro 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 10 |
| Base clock speed | 2.748 GHz | 2.064 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.06 GHz | 3.22 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 2.9 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 28 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 24 MB |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 5 nm |
| Number of transistors | 92000 Million | 33700 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Apple M1 Pro 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.
| Power consumption (TDP) | 78 Watt | 2064 ‑ 3220 Watt |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Apple M3 Max 40-Core GPU | Apple M1 Pro 16-Core GPU |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.76 | 11.23 |
| Recency | 30 October 2023 | 18 October 2021 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 10 |
| Threads | 16 | 10 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 78 Watt | 2064 Watt |
Apple M3 Max 16-Core has a 138.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 60% more physical cores and 60% more threads, a 66.7% more advanced lithography process, and 2546.2% lower power consumption.
The Apple M3 Max 16-Core is our recommended choice as it beats the Apple M1 Pro in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Apple M1 Pro, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
