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 Pro 10-core review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£2,420PassMark multi-core score:21923N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:3.22 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):30 W

Apple M1 Pro 10-core Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 15 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%

6.9

Technical score

25%

8.6

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
5.5

Value for money

Value for money
5.5/ 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 99% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 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 66% of models
Score components

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

6.3

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

5.8

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 66%
8.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.6/ 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 95% of models

80%

8.5

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (15)
15 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 95%
?

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~ £2,420
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 Pro 10-core

Based on 0 · 13

Reviewers love the battery life and editing speed, but nearly everyone finds the price hard to swallow.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M1 Pro 10-core

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 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 66% of models
Score components:

60%

7.1

Performance

18%

6.3

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

5.8

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

6.9
Reviews score
8.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.5/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.5
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% 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 3.22 GHz & 2x 2.06 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.22 GHz & 2x2.06 GHz which is higher than that of 83.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
21,923
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 21,923 in PassMark, which is higher than 73.7% 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
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
389 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 389 MHz which is higher than that of 68.3% 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
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 Pro 10-core vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.37x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,350 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,350 vs 5,209
  • 48.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,795 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,795 vs 2,558
  • 91.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (21,923 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    21,923 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
  • 55.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,386 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,386 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
  • 4.26x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (200 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    200 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 28.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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 95% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    15 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.
    8.6 vs 6.7
  • 28.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.6/ 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 95% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    15 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.
    8.6 vs 6.7
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 2.37x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (12,350 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    12,350 vs 5,209
  • 48.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,795 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,795 vs 2,558
  • 91.2% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (21,923 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    21,923 vs 11,469
  • 55.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,386 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,386 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 (8x3.22 GHz & 2x2.06 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.22 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
  • 66.1% faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (565 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    565 vs 340.075
  • 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
  • 6.81x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (33.7 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    33.7 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
  • 4.26x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (200 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    200 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
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 17.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (403 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    403 vs 490
  • Less advanced architecture
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • 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
  • 9.68x more expensive
    Apple M1 Pro 10-core is more expensive than the average processor (£2,420 vs £250).
    £2,420 vs £250
  • 31.7% worse value for money
    Apple M1 Pro 10-core has worse value for money than the average processor (5.53 vs 7.3).
    5.53 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 17.8% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (403 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    403 vs 490
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake).
    Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake
  • 38.4% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (245 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    245 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    4 vs 2
  • 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

6.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
10/11/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks and efficiency tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Pro 10-core is efficient and fast, but it is overhyped, does not beat desktop chips, and is expensive with poor gaming support.
6.0
CNET
≈ estimated
19/11/2021
Benchmark comparison · M1 Pro versus M1 Max
Verdict
Apple M1 Pro 10-core pays off only in select cases, and most buyers do not need a Pro-level chip.
9.0
Created Tech
≈ estimated
08/11/2021
Comparison · M1 Pro versus M1 Max tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Pro 10-core already offers good value, and most people will not need the faster Max.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M1 Pro 10-core

  • Exceptional power efficiency leading to industry-leading battery life, often lasting a full workday under heavy use.
  • Significant performance leap over previous Intel-based MacBooks, particularly in multi-core tasks like video editing and software compilation.
  • Quiet and cool operation; the fans rarely spin up even during intensive workloads like 4K video exports.
  • High-speed unified memory bandwidth (200 GB/s) that reduces bottlenecks in data-heavy applications.
  • Integrated 16-core GPU provides enough power for creative tasks and smooth 8K video playback without needing a discrete graphics card.
  • Excellent real-world performance for developers, significantly shortening build times for large projects.

What customers don't like about Apple M1 Pro 10-core

  • Gaming performance is limited due to lack of optimization for many titles and no support for hardware-accelerated ray tracing or DLSS.
  • Running older x86 software requires Rosetta 2 emulation, which can occasionally lead to slight performance overhead or minor bugs.
  • Native support for multiple external displays is better than the standard M1 but still more restricted compared to high-end desktop workstations.
  • Lack of user-upgradable components; RAM and storage are soldered and must be chosen at the time of purchase.
  • External device compatibility issues, such as HDMI 2.0 limitations on certain models preventing 4K at 120Hz without specific adapters.

Verdict

The Apple M1 Pro (10-Core) is a high-performance system-on-a-chip (SoC) built on a 5nm process, featuring 33.7 billion transistors and a hybrid architecture consisting of eight high-performance cores and two high-efficiency cores with clock speeds up to 3.2 GHz. It integrates a 16-core GPU, a 16-core Neural Engine for AI tasks, and supports up to 32GB of unified memory with a massive 200GB/s bandwidth. Main pros include its exceptional power efficiency, industry-leading performance-per-watt that remains consistent even on battery, and dedicated media engines with ProRes acceleration for professional video editing. However, notable cons include limited gaming support on macOS, the inability to upgrade memory or storage after purchase due to the unified design, and a reduction in efficiency core count (down to two) compared to the base M1, which can slightly impact idle battery life in specific scenarios.

Compare Apple M1 Pro 10-core 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 Pro 10-core and other processors

No results found