OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Apple M1 Max review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,360PassMark multi-core score:22157N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:3.22 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):30 W

Apple M1 Max Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 44 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.5/10

Overall score

Score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 78% of models
Score components

40%

6.7

Technical score

25%

8.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 78% of processors
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

3.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 94%
6.7

Technical score

Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 64% of models
Score components

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

6.3

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

5.8

Platform

1%

9.1

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 64%
8.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models

80%

8.7

Average grade

20%

9.7

Popularity

Grades by review (44)
13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 31 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
★Better than 99%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,360
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Apple M1 Max

Based on 7 · 33

Reviewers praise its fast, cool and quiet performance, especially for video editing, but most find it overpriced and its memory options limiting.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M1 Max

Technical score
Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 64% of models
Score components:

60%

6.9

Performance

18%

6.3

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

5.8

Platform

1%

9.1

Integrated graphics

6.7
Reviews score
8.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

3.3

Price

6.2
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
N/A
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
ARM64
This processor uses the ARM64 architecture, which is less advanced than that of 98.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Apple silicon
Instruction sets
NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, AMX
This processor supports NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, AMX instruction sets, which is narrower support than 69.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
10
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 10 CPU cores, which is more than 75.2% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
10
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 10 CPU threads, which is more than 52.4% of processors and equal to 0.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.22 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.22 GHz which is lower than that of 89.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
8x 3.23 GHz & 2x 2.06 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.23 GHz & 2x2.06 GHz which is higher than that of 83.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
22,157
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 22,157 in PassMark, which is higher than 74.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
5 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 5 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 83.5% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 5 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 5 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
L3 cache
?
L2 cache
28 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 28 MB which is larger than that of 95.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
L1 cache
2,944 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 2,944 KB which is larger than that of 98.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5, which is newer than that of 87.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
6,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 6,400 MHz, which is higher than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to 8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5-6400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5-6400 MHz, which is higher than that of 83.6% of processors and equal to 2.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,300 MHz which is higher than that of 96.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% 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)
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 99.5% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
30 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 30 W which is lower than that of 67.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
?
Boost power (PL2)
N/A
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Apple M1 Max vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.43x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,658 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,658 vs 5,209
  • 49.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,832 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,832 vs 2,558
  • 93.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,157 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,157 vs 11,469
  • 9.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (28 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    28 MB vs 3 MB
  • 57.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,419 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,419 vs 1,535
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • 32.8% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 99% of models

    80%

    8.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (44)
    13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 31 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.9 vs 6.7
  • 8.53x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (400 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    400 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 32.8% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 99% of models

    80%

    8.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (44)
    13 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 31 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.9 vs 6.7
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 2.43x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,658 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,658 vs 5,209
  • 49.8% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,832 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,832 vs 2,558
  • 93.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (22,157 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    22,157 vs 11,469
  • 57.6% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,419 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,419 vs 1,535
  • 4 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (10 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    10 vs 6
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.23 GHz & 2x2.06 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.23 GHz & 2x2.06 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (10 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    10 vs 8
  • 9.33x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (28 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    28 MB vs 3 MB
  • 7.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (2,944 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    2,944 KB vs 384 KB
  • 58.3% smaller process node
    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
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
    performance + efficiency cores
  • 11.52x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (57 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    57 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • More advanced foundry
    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
  • 8.53x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (400 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    400 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5 vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5 vs DDR4
  • 2x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5-6400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5-6,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 3.71x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,300 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,300 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 33.3% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (30 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    30 W vs 45 W
  • 26.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.22 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake).
    Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 19.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (393 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    393 vs 490
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 2.44x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (432 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    432 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Less advanced architecture
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • 5.44x more expensive
    Apple M1 Max is more expensive than the average processor (£1,360 vs £250).
    £1,360 vs £250
  • 16.9% worse value for money
    Apple M1 Max has worse value for money than the average processor (6.23 vs 7.3).
    6.23 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Less advanced architecture
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • 26.8% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.22 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 19.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (393 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    393 vs 490
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake).
    Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.44x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (432 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    432 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.

Video reviews

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

9.0
Techsumer
≈ estimated
11/02/2026
Long-term review · 4 years of daily use
Verdict
Apple M1 Max still performs very well after four years and is a strong used buy, though its storage and keyboard show some wear.
9.5
Taylor Brauer
≈ estimated
14/11/2024
Long-term review · 3 years of daily use
Verdict
Apple M1 Max still holds up after three years, with an excellent screen, strong editing speed and solid build quality.
9.0
The SAHD Studio
≈ estimated
24/01/2024
Long-term use review · main machine for weeks, video editing focus
Verdict
Apple M1 Max still offers the best balance of performance and cost for demanding video editing years after launch.
8.0
Tech Spurt
≈ estimated
01/02/2022
Long-term test · full-time video editing for several months
Verdict
Apple M1 Max is one of the best creative laptops for video editing, but battery life, portability and price hold it back.
9.5
Tom Buck
≈ estimated
02/12/2021
Hands-on review · five weeks as main computer · stress tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Max handles heavy multitasking and rendering without hanging, and it is a pleasure to use.
7.0
optimum
≈ estimated
14/11/2021
Hands-on review · performance and video editing tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Max is very fast for heavy 6K video work, but most people should look at the cheaper M1 models.
9.5
Marques Brownlee
≈ estimated
05/11/2021
Hands-on review · performance, ports, display and battery tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Max delivers a big jump in performance and efficiency, and is one of the best laptops for professionals this year.
8.0
Luke Miani
≈ estimated
31/10/2021
Hands-on test · gaming, benchmarks and battery life
Verdict
Apple M1 Max with the 24-core GPU is a decent choice, but gaming on it is hit or miss.
6.0
MrMacRight
≈ estimated
28/10/2021
Gaming tests · 25 games on native, Rosetta and Windows
Verdict
Apple M1 Max has great potential for gaming, but limited native Mac game support holds it back.
9.5
Jerry Schulze
≈ estimated
27/10/2021
Benchmark review · Geekbench, Cinebench, Final Cut and app tests
Verdict
The Apple M1 Max is the fastest laptop the reviewer has used, with nearly silent fans and only modest heat.
9.0
Ben Mattox
≈ estimated
11/02/2022
Three-month review · daily editing and everyday use
Verdict
Apple M1 Max is the best computer I've used so far and is highly recommended for video editors, though not perfect.
6.0
CNET
≈ estimated
19/11/2021
Benchmark comparison · M1 Pro vs M1 Max tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Max gains over the M1 Pro show up only in select workloads, making it a vanity purchase for most people.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.5
dpreview.com
≈ estimated
30/11/2021
Benchmark tests · Creative work
Verdict
The M1 Max MacBook Pro is the fastest laptop tested for photo and video editing, holding full speed on battery, but it has no USB-A port and no RAM upgrades.
9.0
slashgear.com
≈ estimated
28/02/2022
Long-term test · Creative laptop
Verdict
The MacBook Pro M1 Max is a very fast laptop that lasts up to 11 hours on wireless browsing, though you should check that your apps run natively.
9.0
macworld.com
✓ explicit
18/03/2022
Hands-on test · Desktop workstation
Verdict
The Mac Studio with Apple M1 Max is a powerful, very quiet desktop that suits Intel Mac upgraders, though its memory and storage cannot be upgraded.
9.0
zdnet.com
✓ explicit
02/11/2021
Lab test · 16-inch laptop
Verdict
The 16-inch MacBook Pro with Apple M1 Max is a strong upgrade for pro users with very long battery life, but it weighs 2.2kg.
9.5
reviewed.com
≈ estimated
12/01/2022
Lab test · 16-inch laptop
Verdict
The 16-inch MacBook Pro with Apple M1 Max is a battery champion and a fast laptop, but at almost five pounds it is heavy to carry.
9.0
heise.de
≈ estimated
Not Dated
Lab test · Creative workstation
Verdict
The Mac Studio with Apple M1 Max is a quiet, fast workstation for large images and video, but its soldered-in RAM tops out at 64GB.
9.0
macwelt.de
≈ estimated
19/03/2022
Hands-on test · Desktop workstation
Verdict
The Mac Studio with Apple M1 Max is a fast, port-rich desktop for creators, but it ships without any keyboard or mouse.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M1 Max

  • Exceptional performance for demanding tasks like 4K/8K video editing and 3D rendering
  • High energy efficiency leading to impressive battery life even under professional workloads
  • Industry-leading memory bandwidth (up to 400GB/s) and support for up to 64GB unified memory
  • Maintains consistent performance on battery power without significant throttling
  • Silent operation with fans rarely activating during typical intensive use
  • Significant leap in CPU and GPU power compared to previous Intel-based MacBooks
  • Excellent thermal management resulting in a cooler machine during heavy tasks

What customers don't like about Apple M1 Max

  • High premium price for the chip and associated hardware configurations
  • Some professional software and plugins (e.g., Adobe After Effects) reported as occasionally unstable or not fully optimized for M1 native versions
  • Lack of hardware-accelerated ray tracing compared to newer M3 and M4 chips
  • Reduced portability and increased weight/thickness in the 16-inch laptop form factor
  • Occasional software glitches and system crashes reported with specific third-party Thunderbolt accessories
  • Limited upgradeability post-purchase due to the System on a Chip (SoC) architecture
  • Minor visual issues like 'blooming' on the mini-LED display in dark environments at extreme angles

Verdict

The Apple M1 Max is a high-performance System on a Chip (SoC) built on a 5nm process with 57 billion transistors, featuring a 10-core CPU with 8 performance and 2 efficiency cores. It is defined by its massive graphical capabilities, offering up to a 32-core GPU, 400GB/s memory bandwidth, and support for up to 64GB of unified memory. Key strengths include industry-leading power efficiency, dedicated ProRes hardware acceleration for professional video editing, and the ability to drive up to four external displays simultaneously. However, its primary drawbacks include a very high entry price, the inability to upgrade unified memory or storage after purchase, and performance that may be overkill for users not engaged in heavy 3D or 8K video workloads.

Compare Apple M1 Max 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 Max and other processors

No results found