Apple M1 Max vs Xeon W3520
Aggregate performance score
Apple M1 Max outperforms Xeon W3520 by a whopping 654% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1989 | 525 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.27 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Apple M-Series |
| Power efficiency | 1.34 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | no data |
| Release date | 30 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 18 October 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $404 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 10 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 2.06 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 3.22 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 2.9 MB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 28 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 48 MB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 68 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | 57000 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 2060 ‑ 3220 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max 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 W3520 and Apple M1 Max are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | Apple M1 Max 32-Core GPU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.88 | 14.17 |
| Recency | 30 March 2009 | 18 October 2021 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 10 |
| Threads | 8 | 10 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 2060 Watt |
Xeon W3520 has 1484.6% lower power consumption.
Apple M1 Max, on the other hand, has a 653.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 150% more physical cores and 25% more threads, and a 800% more advanced lithography process.
The Apple M1 Max is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3520 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon W3520 is a server/workstation processor while Apple M1 Max is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3520 and Apple M1 Max, 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.
