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 Ultra review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£4,050PassMark multi-core score:41373N. of physical cores:20CPU boost clock speed:3.22 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):60 W

Apple M1 Ultra Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 43 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Apple M1 Ultra
7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 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 85% of models
Score components

40%

7.8

Technical score

25%

8.1

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 85% of processors
5.7

Value for money

Value for money
5.7/ 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%

7.7

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
7.8

Technical score

Technical score
7.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components

60%

8.6

Performance

18%

6.3

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 82%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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
â–² Better than 78% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

9.7

Popularity

Grades by review (43)
9 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 34 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.
â–²Better than 78%
?

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
  • apple-m1-ultra
apple-m1-ultra
Best prices
    N/A~ £4,050
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 Ultra

Technical score
Technical score
7.8/ 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 82% of models
Score components:

60%

8.6

Performance

18%

6.3

Architecture

10%

7.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.3

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

7.8
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.7/ 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%

7.7

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.7
Processor type
workstation
This processor belongs to the workstation processor class, which is more advanced than that of 95.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
CPU socket
N/A
Chipset
Z790, B660
This processor supports Z790, B660 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
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, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, AMX
This processor supports NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, AMX instruction sets, which is narrower support than 72% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
20
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 20 CPU cores, which is more than 95.2% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
CPU threads
20
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 20 CPU threads, which is more than 84.3% of processors and equal to 5% 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
16x 3.23 GHz & 4x 2.06 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 16x3.23 GHz & 4x2.06 GHz which is higher than that of 96.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
41,373
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 41,373 in PassMark, which is higher than 93% 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
56 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 56 MB which is larger than that of 99.5% of processors.
L1 cache
5,888 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 5,888 KB which is larger than that of 99.7% 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
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% 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
64
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 64 GPU execution units, which is more than 86.7% of processors and equal to 3.9% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
450 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 450 MHz which is higher than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
60 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 60 W which is higher than that of 67.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% 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 Ultra vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.54x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (18,444 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    18,444 vs 5,209
  • 3.61x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (41,373 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    41,373 vs 11,469
  • 14 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (20 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    20 vs 6
  • 3.29x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (9,226 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    9,226 vs 2,804.5
  • 51% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,862 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,862 vs 2,558
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 18.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (56 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    56 MB vs 3 MB
  • 3.08x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1,510 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,510 vs 490
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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
    â–² Better than 78% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (43)
    9 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 34 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.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • Higher-end processor class
    This processor belongs to a higher-end processor class than the average processor (workstation vs mobile).
    workstation vs mobile
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.54x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (18,444 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    18,444 vs 5,209
  • 3.61x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (41,373 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    41,373 vs 11,469
  • 14 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (20 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    20 vs 6
  • 3.29x better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (9,226 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    9,226 vs 2,804.5
  • 51% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,862 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,862 vs 2,558
  • 12 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (20 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    20 vs 8
  • 3.08x higher Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a higher Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (1,510 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    1,510 vs 490
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x3.23 GHz & 4x2.06 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    16x3.23 GHz & 4x2.06 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 56.2% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,398 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,398 vs 1,535
  • 18.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (56 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    56 MB vs 3 MB
  • 15.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (5888 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    5,888 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
  • 23.03x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (114 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    114 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
  • 17.06x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (800 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    800 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 (6400 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    6,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 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
  • 2.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (64 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    64 vs 24
  • 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.
  • 4.75x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (840 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    840 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KTRR, KIP, SPTM vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KTRR, KIP, SPTM vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 16.2x more expensive
    Apple M1 Ultra is more expensive than the average processor (£4,050 vs £250).
    £4,050 vs £250
  • 26.2% worse value for money
    Apple M1 Ultra has worse value for money than the average processor (5.7 vs 7.2).
    5.7 vs 7.2
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KTRR, KIP, SPTM vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR, KTRR, KIP, SPTM vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake).
    Firestorm / Icestorm vs Kaby Lake
  • 4.75x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (840 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    840 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    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
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 33.3% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (60 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    60 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
Michael Caputo
≈ estimated
23/04/2023
Long-term review · 12 months of daily use
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra suits only a few heavy users, so most people would be better off with the M1 Max.
9.0
David Tomic
≈ estimated
21/11/2022
Long-term review · 6 months of daily use
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra is worth the price for creators working with large media, though many apps still run through Rosetta.
9.5
ZY Cheng
≈ estimated
12/09/2022
Long-term test · export, playback and AI benchmarks
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra is very fast for video work and remarkably cool and quiet, though gains vary by task.
9.0
Digital Foundry
≈ estimated
14/08/2022
Hands-on review · benchmarks and comparison with PC hardware
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra offers excellent performance and efficiency, a great buy for demanding Mac workflows but less compelling for PC users.
5.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
23/06/2022
Hands-on review · performance, value and connectivity tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra is compact and powerful, but overpriced and beaten by PCs in most workloads; most people should skip it.
6.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
19/06/2022
Long-term review · workflow and benchmark comparison
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra is not for PC-based creators, but it is a worthwhile upgrade for Mac users already in the ecosystem.
9.0
Alex Ziskind
≈ estimated
17/05/2022
Hands-on test · C++ compile benchmarks against MacBook Air
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra excels at heavy multi-core C++ work, a big jump over the MacBook Air, mainly for developers.
8.0
Engadget
≈ estimated
16/05/2022
Long hands-on tests · creative apps, AI, games and efficiency
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra offers strong desktop power and efficiency, but gaming shortfalls, ecosystem gaps and the price make it harder to recommend broadly.
5.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
01/05/2022
Frustration vent · early ownership complaints
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra isn't working for this creator's workflow yet, and the Mac Studio frustrates them.
8.0
Brian Tong
≈ estimated
27/04/2022
Long-term review · one month of updates and real tests
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra is a great machine for creators, though expensive and not for everyone.
4.0
Cult of Mac
≈ estimated
19/04/2022
Benchmark discussion · video editing tests and value
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra brings no real benefit over the M1 Max for most creators.
5.0
Tech4Baba
≈ estimated
16/04/2022
Daily use review · one month with photo and video work
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra is more machine than everyday use needs; the Max is fast enough, and the Ultra helps only some heavy workloads.
More graded video reviews (12)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

What reviewers agree on

Based on 6 · 36

Reviewers love its power, quiet running and video editing speed, but most find it overpriced and barely better than the M1 Max.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
engadget.com
≈ estimated
17/05/2022
Benchmark tests · Workstation chip
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra is about twice as fast as the M1 Max in most CPU work, but its software still feels unfinished.
9.0
zdnet.com
✓ explicit
07/04/2022
Benchmark review · Compact workstation
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra, in the Mac Studio, is a compact workstation that roughly doubles the multi-core speed of a MacBook Pro, but it can't be upgraded internally.
9.0
digitalcameraworld.com
✓ explicit
01/04/2022
Hands-on test · Desktop workstation
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra, in a tiny Mac Studio desktop, handles heavy multitasking as well as a top Intel Mac Pro on 70% less power, but can't be upgraded.
9.0
xda-developers.com
≈ estimated
17/04/2022
Hands-on review · Compact desktop
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra in the Mac Studio is a quiet, very fast mini desktop for heavy multithreaded work, though most people are better served by the M1 Max model.
9.0
innovation.dday.it
≈ estimated
29/04/2022
Hands-on review · Pro desktop
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra in the Mac Studio leads the Apple Silicon line for CPU-heavy apps, though its 20-core CPU comes bundled with extra GPU cores.
8.0
tuttotech.net
≈ estimated
21/04/2022
Hands-on test · Compact workstation
Verdict
Apple M1 Ultra gives the Mac Studio workstation performance in a compact case that stays cool, but its memory and storage can't be upgraded later.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Apple M1 Ultra

  • Extraordinary multi-core performance for complex professional workflows like 8K video editing and 3D rendering
  • Exceptional power efficiency, delivering high performance with significantly lower power consumption compared to high-end Intel and AMD chips
  • Runs cool and quiet even under heavy loads, often eliminating the need for aggressive fan cooling
  • Massive unified memory bandwidth (up to 800GB/s) that reduces latency for data-intensive tasks
  • Strong single-thread performance that remains competitive with modern desktop processors

What we don't like about Apple M1 Ultra

  • Extremely high cost, making it overkill and poor value for casual or non-professional users
  • Not optimized for intense gaming, with performance often lagging behind dedicated high-end GPUs like the RTX 3090
  • Total lack of post-purchase upgradability; RAM and internal components are soldered and cryptographically locked
  • Scaling issues in certain applications where performance does not always double that of the M1 Max as advertised
  • Software compatibility gaps, particularly with older or non-native applications that must run through the Rosetta 2 emulation layer

Verdict

The Apple M1 Ultra is a high-performance system-on-a-chip (SoC) built by interconnecting two M1 Max dies via the UltraFusion architecture, featuring 114 billion transistors and a 20-core CPU with 16 high-performance and 4 efficiency cores. It supports up to a 64-core GPU, a 32-core Neural Engine for machine learning, and a massive 128GB of unified memory with a bandwidth of 800GB/s. Key advantages include industry-leading performance-per-watt, the ability to handle up to 18 streams of 8K ProRes video simultaneously, and a unified memory pool that reduces data-copying latency between the CPU and GPU. However, notable drawbacks include its exclusivity to desktop systems like the Mac Studio due to its size and thermal requirements, and the fact that its components are not user-upgradable after purchase.

Compare Apple M1 Ultra 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 Ultra and other processors

No results found