Apple M1 Pro 8-Core vs Xeon E5-2690

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2690
2012
8 cores / 16 threads, 135 Watt
6.13
Apple M1 Pro 8-Core
2021
8 cores / 8 threads, 2060 Watt
10.82
+76.5%

Apple M1 Pro 8-Core outperforms Xeon E5-2690 by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1081712
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.76no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataApple M-Series
Power efficiency4.30no data
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EP (2012)no data
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)18 October 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$397no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads168
Base clock speed2.9 GHz2.06 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz3.22 GHz
Bus rate8 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)2.3 MB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)28 MB
L3 cache20480 KB (shared)16 MB
Chip lithography32 nm5 nm
Die size435 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature72 °Cno data
Number of transistors2,270 million33700 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core 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 configuration2no data
SocketFCLGA2011no data
Power consumption (TDP)135 Watt2060 ‑ 3220 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXno data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core 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 Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core 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 Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size384 GBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth51.2 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AApple M1 Pro 14-Core GPU

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes40no data

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.

Xeon E5-2690 6.13
Apple M1 Pro 8-Core 10.82
+76.5%

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.

Xeon E5-2690 9736
Apple M1 Pro 8-Core 17191
+76.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.13 10.82
Recency 6 March 2012 18 October 2021
Threads 16 8
Chip lithography 32 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 135 Watt 2060 Watt

Xeon E5-2690 has 100% more threads, and 1425.9% lower power consumption.

Apple M1 Pro 8-Core, on the other hand, has a 76.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.

The Apple M1 Pro 8-Core is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2690 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2690 is a server/workstation processor while Apple M1 Pro 8-Core is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2690 and Apple M1 Pro 8-Core, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon E5-2690
Xeon E5-2690
Apple M1 Pro 8-Core
M1 Pro 8-Core

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.5 610 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2690 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 104 votes

Rate Apple M1 Pro 8-Core on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2690 or Apple M1 Pro 8-Core, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.