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 14-core CPU 20-core GPU review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£2,510PassMark multi-core score:38026N. of physical cores:14CPU boost clock speed:4.51 GHzCPU socket:N/ATDP (Thermal design power):40 W

Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-core GPU Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 15 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 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
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%
8.1

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%

7.4

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

5.7

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 88%
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%

8.4

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (15)
2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 13 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~ £2,510
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 14-core CPU 20-core GPU

Based on 2 · 12

Reviewers rave about its performance and gorgeous display, but grumble about the steep price and stingy base storage and memory.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-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%

7.4

Architecture

10%

7.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.4

Power & Thermal

4%

5.7

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

8.1
Reviews score
8.5
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
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, FP16, SME
This processor supports NEON, FP16, SME instruction sets, which is narrower support than 86.9% 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
14
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 14 CPU threads, which is more than 67.3% of processors and equal to 1.6% 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
10x 4.5 GHz & 4x 2.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 10x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz which is higher than that of 95.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
38,026
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 38,026 in PassMark, which is higher than 91.3% 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
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
?
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
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% 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 20-core GPU
This processor uses the Apple 20-core GPU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 99.4% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% 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)
40 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 40 W which is lower than that of 52.8% 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 14-core CPU 20-core GPU vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.31x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (22,438 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    22,438 vs 5,209
  • 3.32x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (38,026 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    38,026 vs 11,469
  • 2.51x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,851 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,851 vs 1,535
  • 78.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,556 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,556 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 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
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (10x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    10x4.5 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%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    2 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 0 estimated from the review. 13 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.
  • 4.31x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (22,438 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    22,438 vs 5,209
  • 3.32x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (38,026 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    38,026 vs 11,469
  • 2.51x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (3,851 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    3,851 vs 1,535
  • 78.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,556 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,556 vs 2,558
  • 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 (10x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    10x4.5 GHz & 4x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 6 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (14 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    14 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
  • More advanced Turbo Core
    This processor has a more advanced Turbo Core version than the average processor (3 vs 2).
    Turbo Core
    3 vs 2
  • 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
  • 5.82x 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
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 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 20-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Apple 20-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, FP16, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, FP16, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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.
  • 69.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (300 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    300 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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)
  • 10.04x more expensive
    Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£2,510 vs £250).
    £2,510 vs £250
  • 10.04x more expensive
    Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-core GPU is more expensive than the average processor (£2,510 vs £250).
    £2,510 vs £250
  • 24.1% worse value for money
    Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-core GPU has worse value for money than the average processor (5.87 vs 7.3).
    5.87 vs 7.29
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (NEON, FP16, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    NEON, FP16, SME vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 69.5% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (300 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    300 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 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

8.0
MrMacRight
≈ estimated
12/04/2025
Gaming tests · five Mac games at 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
Apple M4 Pro delivers good gaming performance for a laptop, though ray tracing and the newest titles are limited.
9.5
Santhosh Kumar
≈ estimated
05/03/2025
Hands-on review · one month of daily use and performance tests
Verdict
Apple M4 Pro delivers about 75% of the M4 Max's performance at a much lower price, making it the best balance in the lineup.
8.0
Andrew Tsai
≈ estimated
12/11/2024
Gaming test · 10 games with translation layers
Verdict
Apple M4 Pro runs many games well, but the upgrade is justified mainly by performance and storage, not gaming.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
galaxus.at
✓ explicit
14/11/2024
Lab test · Pro laptop
Verdict
The M4 Pro MacBook Pro 14 matches last year's M3 Max in processor work and uses less power per task, but everyday photo editing is barely faster.
9.1
notebookcheck.biz
✓ explicit
11/11/2024
Lab test · Power and speed
Verdict
The M4 Pro is very fast in single-core work, but its power draw climbed about 60 percent under full multi-core load, which hurts efficiency.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-core GPU

  • Significant multicore performance jump, reportedly up to 50-60% faster than the M3 Pro.
  • GPU performance gains of roughly 33% over the previous generation, aiding 3D rendering and video editing.
  • Exceptional battery life, with some users reporting up to 18-24 hours for light to moderate tasks.
  • Inclusion of Thunderbolt 5, supporting up to 120Gbps data transfer speeds for professional peripherals.
  • Impressive thermal efficiency, with fans remaining quiet even during sustained heavy workloads.
  • Superior single-core performance that leads to a highly responsive and fluid everyday user experience.

What customers don't like about Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-core GPU

  • High total cost of ownership, especially with pricey upgrades for unified memory and SSD storage.
  • Diminishing returns on performance-per-dollar when compared to the base 12-core M4 Pro model.
  • Complete lack of user-replaceable or upgradable internal components after purchase.
  • Increased heat output and fan noise under extreme full-load stress compared to some previous models.
  • Gaming ecosystem remains limited on macOS, with some titles still requiring translation layers or underperforming.
  • Absence of legacy ports like USB-A, requiring adapters for many older wired peripherals.

Verdict

The Apple M4 Pro (14-core CPU / 20-core GPU) is a high-performance system-on-a-chip built on an advanced 3nm process, featuring 10 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores alongside a 20-core GPU with hardware-accelerated ray tracing. It delivers a massive 273GB/s memory bandwidth, supports up to 64GB of unified memory, and includes a 16-core Neural Engine optimized for Apple Intelligence. Main pros include exceptional single-threaded speeds, up to 1.9x faster multi-core performance than the M1 Pro, and support for Thunderbolt 5's 120Gb/s data transfer. However, potential cons include a high starting price for the 14-core configuration and thermal concerns, as this fully enabled chip can run hotter and may experience throttling under sustained professional workloads compared to lower-core variants.

Compare Apple M4 Pro 14-core CPU 20-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 14-core CPU 20-core GPU and other processors

No results found