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 M5 Max review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£4,670PassMark multi-core score:?N. of physical cores:18CPU boost clock speed:4.61 GHzCPU socket:?TDP (Thermal design power):100 W

Apple M5 Max Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 14 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, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User 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 90% of models
Score components

40%

7.9

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

15%

?

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

10%

?

User scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 8.4, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 90% of processors
5.8

Value for money

Value for money
5.8/ 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 99% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
7.9

Technical score

Technical score
7.9/ 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 84% of models
Score components

60%

8.7

Performance

18%

7.2

Architecture

10%

6.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.6

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

9.8

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 84%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 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 90% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

9.0

Popularity

Grades by review (14)
10 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
★Better than 90%
?

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
No ratings from across the web yet, so it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
No ratings from across the web yet
?

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 15% 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
Best prices
    N/A~ £4,670
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Apple M5 Max

Technical score
Technical score
7.9/ 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 84% of models
Score components:

60%

8.7

Performance

18%

7.2

Architecture

10%

6.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

4.6

Power & Thermal

4%

6.8

Platform

1%

9.8

Integrated graphics

7.9
Reviews score
8.4
User score
?
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.8
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
?
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.
Instruction sets
Armv9.2-A (64 bit)
Show more
N. of physical cores
18
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 18 CPU cores, which is more than 94.7% of processors and equal to 0.4% of processors.
CPU threads
18
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 18 CPU threads, which is more than 83.7% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.61 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.61 GHz which is higher than that of 64.7% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
?
PassMark multi-core score
?
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
?
L3 cache
24 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 24 MB which is larger than that of 80.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
L2 cache
32 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 32 MB which is larger than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 2% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% 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
9,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 9,600 MHz, which is higher than that of 99.5% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-9600 MHz
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Apple 40-core GPU
This processor uses the Apple 40-core GPU integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 99.7% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
640
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 640 GPU execution units, which is more than 100% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
?
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), ProRes (HW decode/encode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), ProRes (HW decode/encode), ProRes RAW (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 99.8% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
100 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 100 W which is higher than that of 89.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
140 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 140 W which is higher than that of 79.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

Apple M5 Max vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 5.61x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (29,233 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    29,233 vs 5,209
  • 12 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (18 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    18 vs 6
  • 2.78x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (4,268 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    4,268 vs 1,535
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 10 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    18 vs 8
  • 10.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    32 MB vs 3 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 13.1x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (614.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    614.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 25.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 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 90% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    9.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (14)
    10 reviews: 6 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    8.4 vs 6.7
  • 6 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
    2026 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 5.61x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (29,233 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    29,233 vs 5,209
  • 12 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (18 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    18 vs 6
  • 2.78x higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (4,268 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    4,268 vs 1,535
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 10 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (18 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    18 vs 8
  • 4.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.6 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.61 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 18 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (46 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    46 vs 28
  • 10.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    32 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
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 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
  • 2.67x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (24 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    24 MB vs 9 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (5 vs 3).
    5.0 vs 3.0
  • 13.1x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (614.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    614.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 3x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (9600 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    9,600 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
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Apple 40-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Apple 40-core GPU vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 26.67x more GPU execution units
    This processor has more GPU execution units than the average processor (640 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    640 vs 24
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Apple M5 vs Kaby Lake).
    Apple M5 vs Kaby Lake
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (Armv9.2-A (64 bit) vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    Armv9.2-A (64 bit) vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W
  • 2.19x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (140 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    140 W vs 64 W
  • 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).
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 18.68x more expensive
    Apple M5 Max is more expensive than the average processor (£4,670 vs £250).
    £4,670 vs £250
  • 25.6% worse value for money
    Apple M5 Max has worse value for money than the average processor (5.84 vs 7.3).
    5.84 vs 7.33
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (Armv9.2-A (64 bit) vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    Armv9.2-A (64 bit) vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Less advanced architecture
    This processor uses a less advanced architecture than the average processor (ARM64 vs x86-64).
    ARM64 vs x86-64
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 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.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Apple M5 vs Kaby Lake).
    Apple M5 vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-9600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-9600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 2.22x higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W
  • 2.19x higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (140 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    140 W vs 64 W
  • 2.22x higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (100 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    100 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

8.0
Zip Tie Tech
≈ estimated
29/03/2026
Hands-on review · performance, battery and display tests
Verdict
Apple M5 Max suits everyday speed and video editing if the budget allows, but check your unit for defects and consider a refurbished M4 Max.
8.0
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
09/03/2026
Hands-on review · benchmarks, plugged vs unplugged, design
Verdict
Apple M5 Max suits video editors and developers well, but it is not a laptop for most people.
9.0
Alex Ziskind
≈ estimated
09/03/2026
Hands-on test · local AI speed and memory bandwidth
Verdict
Apple M5 Max makes a big jump in local AI prompt processing, but token generation gains are modest.
9.0
Geek Culture
≈ estimated
21/09/2026
Performance tests · games, 3DMark and Premiere Pro
Verdict
Apple M5 Max runs demanding games and 3DMark smoothly, making it a strong desktop for creative work.
Shop video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 10 · 3

Reviewers praise excellent battery life and a great display, but criticise the dated design, heat and weaker sustained performance.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
notebookcheck.net
✓ explicit
11/03/2026
Lab test · Throttling check
Verdict
The M5 Max MacBook Pro 14 has a solid Mini-LED screen and long battery life, but it throttles under sustained load, so performance is inconsistent.
8.0
noobfeed.com
≈ estimated
25/03/2026
Gaming test · Native and CrossOver
Verdict
The Apple M5 Max runs native and CrossOver-translated games at high settings, often near 60 fps at 4K with upscaling, but compatibility and stability still lag.
9.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
09/03/2026
Hands-on test · Creator laptop
Verdict
The 14-inch M5 Max MacBook Pro is a strong portable workstation with good speakers and nearly 18 hours of battery, but its chip and SSD can't be upgraded.
8.0
arstechnica.com
≈ estimated
09/03/2026
Lab test · Chip analysis
Verdict
The Apple M5 Max is a modest step up from the M4 Max, about 10% faster in single-core work and 20 to 35% quicker in graphics, not a leap.
8.0
theverge.com
✓ explicit
21/03/2026
Hands-on test · Upgrade comparison
Verdict
The 16-inch M5 Max MacBook Pro roughly doubles M1 Max storage and graphics speed, though few owners of older models need that jump.
9.0
digitalcameraworld.com
✓ explicit
26/03/2026
Hands-on test · Video editing
Verdict
The 14-inch M5 Max MacBook Pro handles Photoshop and Premiere Pro tasks very quickly, but most photo and video users won't need its top configuration.
9.0
musicradar.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2026
Studio session test · Pro laptop
Verdict
The MacBook Pro M5 Max handles very large Logic Pro sessions with a fan you can barely hear, but most musicians will never need its top-end power.
8.6
cnet.com
✓ explicit
09/03/2026
Hands-on test · Pro laptop
Verdict
The MacBook Pro 16 with M5 Pro is fast, with an excellent screen, and most people won't need the Max chip's extra graphics power.
7.0
slashcam.de
≈ estimated
19/03/2026
Lab test · Video editing benchmark
Verdict
The M5 Max MacBook Pro runs DaVinci Resolve GPU effects 20-40% faster than its predecessor and matches a mobile RTX 5080 on graphics power.
9.0
lemondeinformatique.fr
≈ estimated
11/03/2026
Lab test · Pro laptop
Verdict
The MacBook Pro M5 Max is a 16-inch workstation with a much faster SSD and graphics chip, but its CPU gains over the M4 Max are small.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Apple M5 Max

  • Memory bandwidth reaches 614.4 GB/s, so huge files move quickly.
  • Up to 128 GB of memory covers very large projects.
  • 640 GPU execution units handle heavy graphics and video work.
  • Eight memory channels keep data flowing to all the cores.
  • 24 MB of L3 cache keeps more data close to the cores.
  • A clock speed of 4.61 GHz helps single demanding tasks finish sooner.

What we don't like about Apple M5 Max

  • A 100 W base power means serious heat and strong cooling.
  • Boost power reaches 140 W, so it draws a lot of energy under load.
  • There is no multithreading, so each core runs just one thread.
  • The L1 cache is only 192 KB, which is small for demanding code.
  • Only 8 PCIe lanes limit how many fast devices connect at once.

Verdict

Memory is the main story of the Apple M5 Max, which reaches 614.4 GB/s through 8 memory channels and can hold up to 128 GB. It shares the same 18 cores and 12 performance cores as the M5 Pro, but its GPU has 640 execution units, double that chip's 320. The 3 nm chip packs 28 billion transistors and runs at up to 4.61 GHz. The cost of that speed is heat: the chip is rated at 100 W and can boost to 140 W. That means serious cooling and a shorter time away from a power outlet. It also has no multithreading or Turbo Boost. It suits a video editor, 3D artist or machine learning developer who works with huge files and does not mind a machine that runs hot.

Compare Apple M5 Max 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 M5 Max and other processors

No results found