Apple M1 vs Ryzen 5 PRO 215
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 PRO 215 outperforms M1 by a whopping 118% 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 | 921 | 1468 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Apple Apple M-Series |
| Power efficiency | 15.39 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | Apple |
| Architecture codename | Hawk Point-U (Zen 4 + Zen 4c) (2023−2025) | no data |
| Release date | no data | 10 November 2020 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 PRO 215 and M1 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.064 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.7 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | no data | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | no data | 5 nm |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16000 Million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 215 and M1 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) | 28 Watt | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Apple M1 8-Core GPU |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.21 | 4.69 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
Ryzen 5 PRO 215 has a 117.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more threads.
Apple M1, on the other hand, has 33.3% more physical cores.
The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 215 is our recommended choice as it beats the Apple M1 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
