Celeron G4900 vs Apple M4 Max (16 cores)
Aggregate performance score
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) outperforms Celeron G4900 by a whopping 1752% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 168 | 2149 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.95 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M4 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 29.41 | 2.80 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Coffee Lake (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 3 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $42 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.51 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 54 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-2400 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Apple M4 40-core GPU | Intel UHD Graphics 610 |
| Max video memory | no data | 64 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.97 | 1.51 |
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 3 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 54 Watt |
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) has a 1752.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron G4900, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Apple M4 Max (16 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron G4900 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M4 Max (16 cores) is a notebook processor while Celeron G4900 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron G4900, 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.
