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 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£3,390PassMark multi-core score:38486N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:4.51 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):80 W

Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 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 88% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

?

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

â–²Better than 88% 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%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
8.1

Technical score

Technical score
8.1/ 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 88% of models
Score components

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

7.6

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 88%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 66% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
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 66%
?

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~ £3,390
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 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU

Based on 0 · 4

Reviewers agree performance is outstanding, but most feel it falls short on value for money.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU

Technical score
Technical score
8.1/ 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 88% of models
Score components:

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

7.6

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.1

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

8.7

Integrated graphics

8.1
Reviews score
7.9
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%

7.8

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.7
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, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME
This processor supports NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME instruction sets, which is narrower support than 51.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
14
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 14 CPU cores, which is more than 85.7% of processors and equal to 4.3% of processors.
CPU threads
?
CPU boost clock speed
4.51 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.51 GHz which is higher than that of 59.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
10x 4.51 GHz & 4x 2.59 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 10x4.51 GHz & 4x2.59 GHz which is higher than that of 96% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
38,486
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 38,486 in PassMark, which is higher than 91.6% 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
?
L1 cache
3,968 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 3,968 KB which is larger than that of 98.9% 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
8,533 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8533 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8533 MHz, which is higher than that of 98.5% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
36 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 36 GB of memory, which is less than 72.8% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Apple 32-core GPU
This processor uses the Apple 32-core GPU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 99.6% 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
ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 58.7% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
80 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 80 W which is higher than that of 85.8% 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 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.43x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (23,088 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    23,088 vs 5,209
  • 3.36x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (38,486 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    38,486 vs 11,469
  • 81.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,636 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,636 vs 2,558
  • 2.52x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,868 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,868 vs 1,535
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (10x4.51 GHz & 4x2.59 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    10x4.51 GHz & 4x2.59 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 8.74x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (410 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    410 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 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
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    August 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.
  • 4.43x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (23,088 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    23,088 vs 5,209
  • 3.36x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (38,486 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    38,486 vs 11,469
  • 81.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,636 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,636 vs 2,558
  • 2.52x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,868 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,868 vs 1,535
  • 8 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (14 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    14 vs 6
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (10x4.51 GHz & 4x2.59 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    10x4.51 GHz & 4x2.59 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2.5% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.51 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • 10.33x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (3,968 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    3,968 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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
  • 8.74x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (410 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    410 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2.67x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8,533 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    8,533 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-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8533 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Apple 32-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Apple 32-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, PAC, BTI vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI 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
  • 13.56x more expensive
    Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£3,390 vs £250).
    £3,390 vs £250
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 26.8% worse value for money
    Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU has worse value for money than the average processor (5.75 vs 7.3).
    5.75 vs 7.29
  • 77.8% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (80 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    80 W vs 45 W
  • 13.56x more expensive
    Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£3,390 vs £250).
    £3,390 vs £250
  • 26.8% worse value for money
    Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU has worse value for money than the average processor (5.75 vs 7.3).
    5.75 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, BTI 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, CRC32, AES, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, CRC32, AES, SHA2, SHA3, DotProd, FP16, I8MM, AMX, SME 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.
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 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
  • 43.8% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (36 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    36 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) 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.
  • 77.8% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (80 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    80 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

7.0
Cine Dailies
≈ estimated
21/10/2025
Long-term review · six months of filmmaker use
Verdict
Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU is a solid editing machine, but unless your workflow demands it, upgrading from older Macs isn't necessary.
7.0
SoulOfTech
≈ estimated
17/05/2025
Long-term review · battery, thermals, display and value
Verdict
Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU delivers strong power and runs cool, but most buyers would do better with the cheaper M4 Pro.
9.0
Cole Caccamise
≈ estimated
08/12/2024
Long-term use · one month of editing and development work
Verdict
Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU suits heavy editing and development, though battery life and heat are the trade-offs.
9.0
Bobby Tonelli
≈ estimated
07/11/2024
Hands-on review · benchmarks, real-world use, camera and display
Verdict
Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU is a strong upgrade from M1, and its nano-texture display stands out; most users may not need Max power.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU

  • Exceptional performance for intensive creative workflows like 3D rendering, VFX, and high-resolution video editing
  • Significant leap in multi-core and single-core speeds compared to M1/M2 Max generations
  • Excellent power efficiency, maintaining long battery life even with high-performance tasks
  • Support for Thunderbolt 5, providing higher data transfer rates and better future-proofing
  • High memory bandwidth (up to 410 GB/s) which aids in handling massive data sets and AI workloads
  • Stays remarkably quiet and cool during standard productivity tasks

What customers don't like about Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU

  • Extremely high price point, often seen as 'overkill' for anyone but elite professional creators
  • Diminishing returns for gaming, as many titles lack native optimization and perform better on dedicated Windows GPUs
  • Thermal management in the 14-inch chassis can lead to more frequent fan noise compared to the 16-inch model
  • Prohibitively expensive internal storage and RAM upgrade costs
  • Lack of user-upgradable components post-purchase

Verdict

The Apple M4 Max (14-core CPU, 32-core GPU) is a high-performance processor featuring 10 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores, a 16-core Neural Engine, and a massive 410GB/s memory bandwidth. It supports up to 128GB of unified memory and provides advanced capabilities like hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a dual-engine Media Engine for ProRes, and Thunderbolt 5 support with transfer speeds up to 120Gb/s. Main pros include its exceptional multi-threaded performance for heavy 3D rendering and video editing, industry-leading power efficiency that enables up to 22-24 hours of battery life, and the ability to drive up to four external displays simultaneously. Key cons are its premium price point, which may be overkill for most users, non-upgradeable RAM and storage, and a tendency for the 14-inch model's fans to become audible during sustained, high-intensity workloads compared to its 16-inch counterpart.

Compare Apple M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-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 M4 Max 14-core CPU 32-core GPU and other processors

No results found