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 M4 10-core CPU review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,060PassMark multi-core score:23685N. of physical cores:10CPU boost clock speed:4.46 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):22 W

Apple M4 10-core CPU Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 9 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.6/10

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 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 84% of models
Score components

40%

7.7

Technical score

25%

8.0

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 84% of processors
6.8

Value for money

Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

4.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 79%
7.7

Technical score

Technical score
7.7/ 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 80% of models
Score components

60%

8.1

Performance

18%

7.7

Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.2

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 80%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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 72% of models

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 4 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 72%
?

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~ £1,060
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 M4 10-core CPU

Based on 5 · 4

Reviewers praise the generous memory and sharp display, but complain about software limitations and only modest graphics performance.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #1 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M4 10-core CPU

Technical score
Technical score
7.7/ 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 80% of models
Score components:

60%

8.1

Performance

18%

7.7

Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.2

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated graphics

7.7
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.8/ 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 79% of models
Score components:

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

4.9

Price

6.8
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, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, FP16, AMX, SME
This processor supports NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, FP16, AMX, SME instruction sets, which is narrower support than 65% 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
4.46 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.46 GHz which is higher than that of 53.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 4.41 GHz & 6x 2.85 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x4.41 GHz & 6x2.85 GHz which is higher than that of 88.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
23,685
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 23,685 in PassMark, which is higher than 77.1% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
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
20 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 20 MB which is larger than that of 92.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
L1 cache
768 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 768 KB which is larger than that of 77.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,500 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-7500 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-7500 MHz, which is higher than that of 93.1% of processors and equal to 3.2% 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
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Apple 10-core GPU
This processor uses the Apple 10-core GPU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 98.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
10
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 10 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 72.7% of processors and equal to 1.1% of processors.
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)
22 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 22 W which is lower than that of 77% 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

Apple M4 10-core CPU vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.83x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,752 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,752 vs 5,209
  • 2.47x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,788 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,788 vs 1,535
  • 76.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,515 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,515 vs 2,558
  • 2.07x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (23,685 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    23,685 vs 11,469
  • 6.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (20 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    20 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 19.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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 72% of models

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 4 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.
    8.0 vs 6.7
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    May 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • 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.
  • 2.83x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,752 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,752 vs 5,209
  • 2.47x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,788 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,788 vs 1,535
  • 76.5% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,515 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,515 vs 2,558
  • 2.07x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (23,685 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    23,685 vs 11,469
  • 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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (4x4.41 GHz & 6x2.85 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x4.41 GHz & 6x2.85 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
  • 6.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (20 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    20 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
  • 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
  • 5.66x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (28 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    28 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 2x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (768 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    768 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2.56x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (120 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    120 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-7500 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-7500 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Apple 10-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Apple 10-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 51.1% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (22 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    22 W vs 45 W
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 86.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (53 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    53 vs 398.015
  • 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.
  • 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, SHA3, FP16, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, FP16, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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)
  • 4.24x more expensive
    Apple M4 10-core CPU is more expensive than the average processor (£1,060 vs £250).
    £1,060 vs £250
  • 4.24x more expensive
    Apple M4 10-core CPU is more expensive than the average processor (£1,060 vs £250).
    £1,060 vs £250
  • 6.7% worse value for money
    Apple M4 10-core CPU has worse value for money than the average processor (6.83 vs 7.3).
    6.83 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
  • 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, SHA3, FP16, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, FP16, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 86.7% slower Blender rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (53 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    53 vs 398.015
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 58.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (10 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    10 vs 24
  • 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
Mark Linsangan
≈ estimated
02/12/2024
Long-term test · a month of editing and travel
Verdict
Apple M4 10-core CPU is an excellent base laptop for most creators, with 16 GB of memory, strong battery life and a great display.
5.0
Max Tech
≈ estimated
16/05/2024
Comparison test · 8GB vs 16GB iPad Pro benchmarks
Verdict
Apple M4 10-core CPU and 16GB add little real-world performance for the extra cost.
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
macworld.com
✓ explicit
07/11/2024
Lab test · All-in-one desktop
Verdict
The M4 iMac is a fast, good-looking all-in-one that now starts with 16GB of memory and suits video calls, though its stand can't be adjusted for height.
6.0
galaxus.at
✓ explicit
02/12/2024
Product test · All-in-one desktop
Verdict
The M4 iMac suits an office or shop counter where looks matter, but its 60Hz screen, fixed stand and weak base-model cooling hold it back.
8.0
sixcolors.com
≈ estimated
13/05/2024
Hands-on review · OLED tablet
Verdict
The M4 iPad Pro is a very good tablet with an excellent OLED screen, but iPadOS limits and a single port hold back its productivity.
9.0
galaxus.it
≈ estimated
17/05/2024
Early benchmark · Tablet chip
Verdict
The M4 chip is a clear step up from the M3 in single-core speed, but GPU gains are modest and the fanless iPad limits peak performance.
8.0
want.nl
✓ explicit
05/12/2024
Hands-on review · 14-inch laptop
Verdict
The M4 MacBook Pro 14 is fast, lasts two workdays and suits demanding users, though it looks much like its predecessor.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M4 10-core CPU

  • Significant 20-25% jump in single-core performance and up to 50% better multi-core performance compared to the M3
  • Highly power-efficient, enabling class-leading battery life of up to 14-24 hours in laptops
  • Improved multitasking and 1.8x faster speeds compared to the M1 chip
  • Enhanced 16-core Neural Engine significantly boosts AI-driven tasks and machine learning performance
  • 10-core GPU provides smooth graphics performance for 4K video editing, 3D rendering, and gaming
  • Supports advanced external display configurations, including dual 6K monitors on some devices

What customers don't like about Apple M4 10-core CPU

  • Base configurations in some devices (like MacBook Air) lack active cooling fans, leading to thermal throttling under sustained heavy workloads
  • Gaming performance, while improved, still falls behind dedicated high-end Windows gaming laptops
  • The 10-core variant is sometimes stratified, only available on higher-tier storage models in devices like the iPad Pro
  • Premium pricing makes it an expensive upgrade for those already using relatively recent M2 or M3 chips
  • Limited by software ecosystems (macOS or iPadOS) which may not support all specialized Windows-only applications

Verdict

The Apple M4 10-core CPU, built on a second-generation 3nm process, features a high-performance architecture with 4 performance cores and 6 efficiency cores, reaching clock speeds up to 4.46 GHz. It integrates a 16-core Neural Engine capable of 38 TOPS for AI workloads, 28 billion transistors, and supports up to 32GB of unified memory with 120GB/s bandwidth. Main pros include industry-leading single-core performance, exceptional power efficiency (approx. 40W TDP), and hardware-accelerated ray tracing for improved graphics. Notable cons include its non-upgradeable unified memory architecture and a performance gap compared to desktop-class processors in sustained multi-core heavy workloads.

Compare Apple M4 10-core CPU 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 M4 10-core CPU and other processors

No results found