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 M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£4,270PassMark multi-core score:41262N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:4.06 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):78 W

Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 18 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.0/10

Overall score

Score
8.0/ 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
★ Better than 95% of models
Score components

40%

8.4

Technical score

25%

8.3

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

★Better than 95% of processors
5.9

Value for money

Value for money
5.9/ 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 97% of models
Score components

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 97%
8.4

Technical score

Technical score
8.4/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

60%

8.9

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

7.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

★Better than 92%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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 86% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

9.1

Popularity

Grades by review (18)
18 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 86%
?

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~ £4,270
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 M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU

Based on 0 · 19

Reviewers rave about blazing performance and video editing power, but many say it's costly and not worth upgrading to.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU

Technical score
Technical score
8.4/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components:

60%

8.9

Performance

18%

8.3

Architecture

10%

7.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.2

Power & Thermal

4%

6.6

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

8.4
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 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 97% of models
Score components:

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.9
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
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, DotProd, FP16, BF16, I8MM, AMX
This processor supports NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, BF16, I8MM, AMX instruction sets, which is narrower support than 58.5% of processors.
includes Apple Matrix extensions
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 90% of processors and equal to 4.6% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.06 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.06 GHz which is lower than that of 61.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
12x 4.06 GHz & 4x 2.75 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 12x4.06 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz which is higher than that of 96.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
41,262
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 41,262 in PassMark, which is higher than 92.8% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 3 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 3 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 95.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
L3 cache
?
L2 cache
36 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 36 MB which is larger than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
L1 cache
4,608 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 4,608 KB which is larger than that of 99.4% 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
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
Apple 40-core GPU
This processor uses the Apple 40-core GPU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 99.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
500 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 500 MHz which is higher than that of 78.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 61.3% of processors and equal to 10.3% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
78 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 78 W which is higher than that of 85.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% 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 M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.02x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,963 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,963 vs 5,209
  • 3.6x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (41,262 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    41,262 vs 11,469
  • 87.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,789 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,789 vs 2,558
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.04x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,125 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,125 vs 1,535
  • 10.41x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (3,539.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    3,539.3 vs 340.075
  • 12x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    36 MB vs 3 MB
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (12x4.06 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x4.06 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 23.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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 86% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    9.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    18 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.
    8.3 vs 6.7
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2023 vs 2020).
    October 2023
    2023 vs 2020
  • 4.02x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,963 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,963 vs 5,209
  • 3.6x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (41,262 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    41,262 vs 11,469
  • 87.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,789 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,789 vs 2,558
  • 10 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 2.04x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,125 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,125 vs 1,535
  • 10.41x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (3,539.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    3,539.3 vs 340.075
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (12x4.06 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x4.06 GHz & 4x2.75 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 12x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (36 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    36 MB vs 3 MB
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • 12x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (4,608 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    4,608 KB vs 384 KB
  • 62.2% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 3 nm vs Intel 14 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
  • 18.59x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (92 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    92 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 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
  • 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
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Apple 40-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Apple 40-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 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
  • 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, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 2.98x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (527 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    527 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.
  • Less advanced architecture
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    Apple silicon
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • 7.7% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.06 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 17.08x more expensive
    Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£4,270 vs £250).
    £4,270 vs £250
  • 17.08x more expensive
    Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£4,270 vs £250).
    £4,270 vs £250
  • 23.6% worse value for money
    Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU has worse value for money than the average processor (5.9 vs 7.3).
    5.9 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, KIP vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, BF16, I8MM, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    includes Apple Matrix extensions
    NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, DotProd, FP16, BF16, I8MM, AMX vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 7.7% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.1 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.06 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2.98x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (527 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    527 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 73.3% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (78 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    78 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

9.0
AppleInsider
≈ estimated
19/02/2024
Long-term review · 3 months of daily use
Verdict
Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU holds up well after three months, a clear but incremental step up from the M2 Max that isn't for everyone.
9.0
SuperDuprTech
≈ estimated
18/11/2023
Benchmark tests · CPU, GPU, gaming and SSD results
Verdict
Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU delivers stable, strong benchmark results, and its cooling holds up under repeated testing.
6.0
AppleInsider
≈ estimated
13/11/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and value check
Verdict
Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU delivers fast performance for demanding work, but is hard to justify over the previous generation for most buyers.
7.0
Brian Tong
≈ estimated
11/11/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks and video export tests
Verdict
Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU is a great chip, but for most buyers its price and small gains over an M1 Max don't justify upgrading.
9.0
iPhonedo
≈ estimated
06/11/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, editing and gaming tests
Verdict
Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU is very fast, a big step up from the previous model, and has plenty of power for creative work.
8.0
The Tech Chap
≈ estimated
06/11/2023
First review · benchmarks, heat, battery and gaming
Verdict
Apple M3 Max is very fast, but only worth buying for demanding work, not as an upgrade for M2 Max owners.
6.0
TechAddict
≈ estimated
05/02/2024
Comparison · gaming tests vs 4090 laptop
Verdict
Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU is fine for light gaming on one laptop, but not recommended for serious gaming.
5.0
Max Tech
≈ estimated
20/11/2023
Comparison · base vs top model benchmarks and battery
Verdict
Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU: extra cores bring only small gains, so the base model is the better buy.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Brand video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU

  • Exceptional multi-core performance that rivals desktop workstations like the M2 Ultra
  • Massive GPU power with hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shading for 3D rendering
  • Support for up to 128GB of unified memory, ideal for extreme professional workflows
  • Outstanding battery life, often exceeding 15–20 hours for standard tasks
  • Vibrant 16-inch Liquid Retina XDR display with high peak brightness (up to 1600 nits HDR)
  • Efficient performance remains consistent even when running on battery power
  • Excellent build quality and a fingerprint-resistant 'Space Black' finish
  • Premium six-speaker sound system and high-quality integrated microphone array

What customers don't like about Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU

  • Extremely high price point, reaching over $7,000 for fully spec'd configurations
  • Noticeable thermal throttling during sustained, heavy professional workloads
  • Fans can become quite loud and 'obnoxious' under maximum CPU and GPU stress
  • Lower memory bandwidth in the M3 series compared to some previous M2 Max iterations
  • Bulky and heavy chassis (approx. 4.7 lbs) makes it less portable than the MacBook Air
  • Performance gains over the M2 Max may not justify the upgrade cost for existing users
  • The notch in the display remains a polarizing design choice for some users

Verdict

The Apple M3 Max is a powerhouse processor featuring a 16-core CPU composed of 12 performance and 4 efficiency cores, alongside a massive 40-core GPU and 92 billion transistors. Built on a cutting-edge 3nm process, it supports up to 128GB of unified memory with a high 400GB/s bandwidth and introduces hardware-accelerated ray tracing, mesh shading, and Dynamic Caching for elite graphical performance. Its main advantages include desktop-class speeds for demanding workflows like 3D rendering or AI development, exceptional power efficiency that preserves long battery life, and a 16-core Neural Engine for accelerated machine learning tasks. However, its primary drawbacks are its extremely high price point and the tendency for memory and storage upgrades to be significantly expensive.

Compare Apple M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU 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 M3 Max 16-core CPU 40-core GPU and other processors

No results found