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 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,450PassMark multi-core score:32742N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:4.51 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):32 W

Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 11 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 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 93% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

Technical score

25%

8.5

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 93% of processors
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

2.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
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 87% of models
Score components

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

7.8

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 87%
8.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models

80%

8.5

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (11)
11 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
★Better than 92%
?

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~ £1,450
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 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU

Based on 0 · 12

Reviewers praise the display, sound, build and battery life, but most agree the price is hard to swallow.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-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 87% of models
Score components:

60%

8.5

Performance

18%

7.8

Architecture

10%

7.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.5

Power & Thermal

4%

6.3

Platform

1%

7.9

Integrated graphics

8.1
Reviews score
8.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

2.9

Price

6.4
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, SM3, SM4, DotProd, FP16, AMX, SME
This processor supports NEON, AES, SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, SM3, SM4, DotProd, FP16, AMX, SME instruction sets, which is broader support than 67.2% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
12
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 12 CPU cores, which is more than 79.9% of processors and equal to 5.7% of processors.
CPU threads
12
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 53% of processors and equal to 14.2% of processors.
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
8x 4.5 GHz & 4x 2.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz which is higher than that of 94.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
32,742
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 32,742 in PassMark, which is higher than 88.4% 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
3,328 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 3,328 KB which is larger than that of 98.8% 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
?
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Apple 16-core GPU
This processor uses the Apple 16-core GPU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 99.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
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)
32 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 32 W which is lower than that of 67.3% 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 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.9x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,300 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,300 vs 5,209
  • 2.85x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (32,742 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    32,742 vs 11,469
  • 2.51x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,853 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,853 vs 1,535
  • 78.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,561 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,561 vs 2,558
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 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 (8x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 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
  • 26.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ★ Better than 92% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (11)
    11 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.
    8.5 vs 6.7
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    November 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 3.9x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,300 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,300 vs 5,209
  • 2.85x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (32,742 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    32,742 vs 11,469
  • 78.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,561 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,561 vs 2,558
  • 2.51x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,853 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,853 vs 1,535
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 80.9% better multi-core performance
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (5,074 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    5,074 vs 2,804.5
  • 4 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 6 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (10 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    10 vs 4
  • 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
  • 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
  • 8.67x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (3,328 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    3,328 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
  • 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
  • 5.82x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (273 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    273 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 16-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Apple 16-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 28.9% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (32 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    32 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.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR 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 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)
  • 5.8x more expensive
    Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£1,450 vs £250).
    £1,450 vs £250
  • 13.6% worse value for money
    Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU has worse value for money than the average processor (6.41 vs 7.3).
    6.41 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 5.8x more expensive
    Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£1,450 vs £250).
    £1,450 vs £250
  • 13.6% worse value for money
    Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU has worse value for money than the average processor (6.41 vs 7.3).
    6.41 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    Secure Enclave, PAC, APRR 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 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)
  • 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
Kyle Erickson
≈ estimated
25/05/2025
Long-term test · 7 months of daily use · display and ports
Verdict
Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU feels largely like the M3 Pro day to day, but it is a very well built and very capable laptop.
9.0
SoulOfTech
≈ estimated
26/01/2025
Hands-on review · display, performance and battery tests
Verdict
Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU is fast, efficient and more than enough for most users, though upgrade options are limited and the price is high.
9.0
Noah Herman
≈ estimated
15/12/2024
Hands-on review · 3-4 weeks of use, compared with the base model
Verdict
Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU is a solid middle-tier pick for buyers who need more CPU and GPU power.
9.5
GregsGadgets
≈ estimated
08/11/2024
Benchmark review · CPU, GPU and gaming tests
Verdict
Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU offers high-end performance and very good value, so most buyers should pick it.
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU

  • Excellent thermal management with the 12-core configuration running cooler and quieter than the 14-core variant
  • Significant performance leap over the M1 Pro and M2 Pro, particularly in multi-core tasks
  • Exceptional power efficiency providing all-day battery life even under heavy professional workloads
  • Balanced performance-to-value ratio, often cited as the 'sweet spot' for most professional users
  • Improved base memory, now starting at 24GB for M4 Pro models compared to 18GB in previous generations
  • Supports high-end features like Thunderbolt 5 for faster data transfer and improved external display support

What customers don't like about Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU

  • Incremental single-core gains over the M3 series may not justify an upgrade for users already on M3 hardware
  • GPU performance, while strong, still trails significantly behind the M4 Max and high-end dedicated mobile GPUs
  • Non-upgradeable unified memory and storage remain a major long-term limitation for professionals
  • High total cost of ownership when configuring with necessary professional amounts of storage and RAM
  • Lack of Wi-Fi 7 support in the current generation despite its high-end positioning

Verdict

The Apple M4 Pro (12-core CPU, 16-core GPU) is a high-performance system-on-a-chip built on an advanced second-generation 3nm process, featuring 28 billion transistors and a 12-core CPU split into 8 performance and 4 efficiency cores. It excels with a massive 273GB/s memory bandwidth, support for up to 64GB of unified memory, and an integrated 16-core GPU with hardware-accelerated ray tracing and mesh shading that outperforms the older 18-core M3 Pro. Key advantages include Thunderbolt 5 support for 120Gb/s data transfer, a 16-core Neural Engine optimized for Apple Intelligence, and industry-leading power efficiency with up to 24 hours of battery life. However, this specific model is the binned entry-tier version of the M4 Pro, offering fewer CPU and GPU cores than the 14-core/20-core variant, and it lacks the higher memory capacity and extreme bandwidth found in the M4 Max series.

Compare Apple M4 Pro 12-core CPU 16-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 Pro 12-core CPU 16-core GPU and other processors

No results found