OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Apple M1 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£990PassMark benchmark result:14130N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:3.2 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):14 W

Apple M1 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.2

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 59% of models
Score components

90%

6.2

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▲Better than 59% of processors
6.2

Technical score

Technical score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 60% of models
Score components

60%

6.1

Performance

18%

6.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

5.8

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated Graphics

▲Better than 60% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £990

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M1

Technical score
Technical score
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 60% of models
Score components:

60%

6.1

Performance

18%

6.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

5.8

Platform

1%

8.1

Integrated Graphics

6.2
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Apple M1 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

6.2

Overall score

40%

5.3

Price

6.0
Brand name
Apple
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
N/A
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
ARM64
CPU architecture
ARM64
▼ Worse than 98% of models
This processor uses the ARM64 architecture, which is less advanced than that of 98.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% of processors.
Apple silicon
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
N. of physical cores
8
▲ Better than 63% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 63.4% of processors and equal to 13.6% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
▼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.2 GHz
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.2 GHz & 4x 2.06 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.2 GHz & 4x 2.06 GHz
▲ Better than 69% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.2 GHz & 4x2.06 GHz which is higher than that of 69.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
5 nm
Semiconductor size
5 nm
▲ Better than 85% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 5 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 85.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 5 nm
Foundry
TSMC 5 nm
▲ Better than 84% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 5 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 83.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
L3 cache
?
L2 cache
16 MB
L2 cache
16 MB
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 89.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L1 cache
2048 KB
L1 cache
2048 KB
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2048 KB which is larger than that of 96% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR4X
DDR memory version
LPDDR4X
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor supports DDR LPDDR4X, which is older than that of 73.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
▲ Better than 62% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,266 MHz, which is higher than that of 61.5% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-4266 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4X-4266 MHz
▲ Better than 58% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4X-4266 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.3% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
Maximum memory capacity
16 GB
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 16 GB of memory, which is less than 91.7% of processors and equal to 6.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Integrated GPU execution units
16
▼ Worse than 56% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,278 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,278 MHz
★ Better than 96% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,278 MHz which is higher than that of 95.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), ProRes (HW decode/encode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), ProRes (HW decode/encode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode)
★ Better than 100% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), ProRes (HW decode/encode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 99.6% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
14 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
14 W
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 14 W which is lower than that of 94% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
N/A
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
Configurable TDP
no
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Apple M1 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 47% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,675
    ▲ Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,675 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,675 vs 2,500
  • 6.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    16 MB
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    16 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 59.6% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,347
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,347 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,347 vs 1,471
  • 72.8% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    8,344
    ▲ Better than 69% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,344 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,344 vs 4,829
  • 58.3% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    5 nm
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (5 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    5 nm vs 12 nm
  • 5.33x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    2048 KB
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2048 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,048 KB vs 384 KB
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    performance + efficiency cores
  • Includes crypto acceleration
    Cryptographic acceleration
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports HMP
    Uses HMP
    yes
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor supports HMP, the average processor does not. 22.7% of processors support HMP.
  • 47% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    3,675
    ▲ Better than 82% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,675 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    3,675 vs 2,500
  • 59.6% higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,347
    ▲ Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,347 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,347 vs 1,471
  • 72.8% higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    8,344
    ▲ Better than 69% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,344 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,344 vs 4,829
  • 2 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    8
    ▲ Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 33.6% higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    14,130
    ▲ Better than 59% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (14,130 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    14,130 vs 10,572.5
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 3.2 GHz & 4 x 2.06 GHz
    ▲ Better than 69% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x3.2 GHz & 4x2.06 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x3.2 GHz & 4x2.06 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 6.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    16 MB
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    16 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 58.3% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    5 nm
    ▲ Better than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (5 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    5 nm vs 12 nm
  • 5.33x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    2048 KB
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2048 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,048 KB vs 384 KB
  • Uses big.LITTLE design
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    yes
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, the average processor does not. 20.5% of processors use a big.LITTLE design.
    performance + efficiency cores
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 5 nm
    ▲ Better than 84% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 5 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 5 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 31.9% smaller die size
    Die size
    120.5 mm²
    ▲ Better than 83% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (120.5 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    120.5 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 3.23x more transistors
    N. of transistors
    16 billion
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <1.303 billion – >25 billion
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (16 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    16 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • 49.1% higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    68.3 GB/s
    ▲ Better than 66% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (68.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    68.3 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 45.4% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,266 MHz
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4266 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,266 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 3.65x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,278 MHz
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1278 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,278 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 68.9% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    14 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (14 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    14 W vs 45 W
  • 25.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.2 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Firestorm / Icestorm
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake).
    Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • Less advanced architecture
    CPU architecture
    ARM64
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • 17.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    403
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (403 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    403 vs 489
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, AMX
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 3.96x more expensive
    Apple M1 is more expensive than the average processor (£990 vs £250).
    £990 vs £250
  • 3.96x more expensive
    Apple M1 is more expensive than the average processor (£990 vs £250).
    £990 vs £250
  • 10.1% worse value for money
    Apple M1 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.96 vs 6.6).
    5.96 vs 6.56
  • Less advanced architecture
    CPU architecture
    ARM64
    ▼ Worse than 98% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • Narrower instruction support
    Instruction sets
    NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, AMX
    ▼ Worse than 77% of models
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 25.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.2 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 89% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 17.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    403
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (403 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    403 vs 489
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Firestorm / Icestorm
    ▼ Worse than 95% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake).
    Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake
  • 75% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    16 GB
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (16 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    16 GB vs 64 GB
  • Older DDR support
    DDR memory version
    LPDDR4X
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR4X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR4X vs DDR4
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    8
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 vs 2
  • No configurable TDP
    Configurable TDP
    no
    ▼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

I
itpro.com
19/02/2021
Summary of the review
Apple Mac mini (Apple M1, 2020) review: A miniature marvel
H
hothardware.com
10/12/2020
Summary of the review
Mac mini 2020 Review: Apple M1 Silicon Performance Deep Dive
T
techradar.com
19/11/2020
Summary of the review
Apple Mac mini (M1, 2020) review
T
theguardian.com
09/12/2020
Summary of the review
Apple MacBook Air (M1) review: gamechanging speed and battery life
T
techradar.com
21/03/2026
Summary of the review
I put the MacBook Neo through the same tests as I did the MacBook Air M1 The Guardian
D
david-garcia.medium.com
16/02/2021
Summary of the review
An up-to-date software engineer review of the Apple M1 chip on a MacBook Pro 13
P
pcmag.com
17/11/2020
Summary of the review
Apple MacBook Air (M1, Late 2020) Review
C
coolblue.de
07/10/2025
Summary of the review
Apple MacBook Air (2020) with Apple M1 chip
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbild.de
25/01/2021
Summary of the review
Apple Mac Mini 2020: Review of the Smallest Mac
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.com
26/11/2020
Summary of the review
Apple MacBook Air 2020 M1 Benchmark: 7 or 8 GPU Cores?
(Translated)Show original
R
recoverit.wondershare.fr
13/11/2020
Summary of the review
Apple M1 vs. Intel i5: Which is Better?
(Translated)Show original
L
lemondeinformatique.fr
18/11/2020
Summary of the review
Apple MacBook Pro M1 13-inch Review: Stunning Performance and Battery Life
(Translated)Show original
M
macg.co
01/01/2021
Summary of the review
Apple M1 Review: A Slap in the Face for Intel (and AMD)
(Translated)Show original
M
morethantech.it
23/03/2021
Summary of the review
MacBook Air M1 Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tg24.sky.it
15/07/2021
Summary of the review
iPad Pro: all the portable power of the M1 chip
(Translated)Show original
H
hwupgrade.it
22/12/2020
Summary of the review
MacBook Air with Apple M1: The Dawn of a New Apple. The Review
(Translated)Show original
S
smartworld.it
22/11/2020
Summary of the review
MacBook Air M1 Review: A Milestone
(Translated)Show original
D
dday.it
19/11/2020
Summary of the review
2020 MacBook Pro with M1 Processor: The "Live" Review
(Translated)Show original
M
macitynet.it
17/11/2020
Summary of the review
First MacBook Air M1 reviews: The speed demon
(Translated)Show original
M
macitynet.it
29/01/2021
Summary of the review
MacBook Pro 13 M1 Review: The Laptop from the Future
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
09/12/2020
Summary of the review
Apple MacBook Pro M1 Review - A Hidden Revolution
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Apple M1

  • Industry-leading performance-per-watt efficiency
  • Exceptional battery life, often lasting a full day or more on a single charge
  • Silent operation and minimal heat generation, particularly in fanless designs
  • Significant performance gains in single-core tasks and optimized Apple software
  • Unified memory architecture provides high bandwidth and snappy system responsiveness
  • Built-in Neural Engine accelerates machine learning and AI-based tasks
  • Compatibility with many iPhone and iPad applications natively on macOS

What we don't like about Apple M1

  • Native support for only one external display on base models
  • Lack of support for external GPUs (eGPUs)
  • Memory (RAM) is soldered and limited to a maximum of 16GB on the standard M1
  • Software compatibility issues with older non-ARM applications, requiring Rosetta 2 translation
  • Thermal throttling under sustained heavy workloads in fanless models like the MacBook Air
  • Limited port selection on most M1-based devices
  • Inability to run Windows OS natively via Boot Camp

Verdict

The Apple M1 is a 5-nanometre System on a Chip (SoC) featuring 16 billion transistors and an 8-core CPU divided into four 'Firestorm' high-performance cores and four 'Icestorm' efficiency cores. It integrates a 7 or 8-core GPU with 2.6 teraflops of throughput, a 16-core Neural Engine for AI tasks, and a unified memory architecture supporting 8GB or 16GB of LPDDR4X-4266 RAM. Main pros include industry-leading performance per watt, silent fanless operation in some models, and exceptional battery life up to 20 hours. However, cons include a lack of support for external GPUs, a limit of only one external display, and non-upgradeable integrated RAM.

Compare Apple M1 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Apple M1 and other processors

No results found