Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) vs Apple M4 Max: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
Apple M4 Max leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: multi-thread performance. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIMulti-thread performance
B +17.3%Apple M4 Max leads in this scenario (up to 17.3% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: single-thread performance, gaming (cpu-bound scenarios), power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Where Apple M4 Max is better1
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 13.7% faster472 samples/min vs 415 samples/min
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 13.7%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom · samples/min, higher is better
Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU)414.7 samples/minApple M4 Max471.6 samples/minPosition among tested models (89)
A · 415B · 4720200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. Apple M4 Max is ahead by 13.7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU)
414.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 31 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 31 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 407.92–421.6; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-06-07; CPU backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · Apple M4 Max
471.6 samples/min · community measurement, sample 133 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 133 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 420.8–491.69; submissions 2025-07-19 to 2026-03-13; CPU backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.
Other comparable benchmarks (2)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 407.7 | 468 | B +14.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 408.2 | 479 | B +17.3% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (10)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 405.4 | 467.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 399.6 | 403.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 351.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 414.3 | 422.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 418.3 | 479.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 417.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 407.3 | 471.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 413.8 | 486.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 382.5 | 410 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 378.3 | 398.1 | reference |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) | B · Apple M4 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cores and clocks | |||
| CoresCores of different types may differ in performance. | 16 (12P + 4E) | no data | no data for B |
| Platform | |||
| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm | equal |
| Memory and interfaces | |||
| Memory type | Unified memory | Unified memory | equal |
| Max memory capacity | no data | 128 GB | no data for A |
| Integrated graphics | Apple M3 Max (30 / 40-core GPU) | Apple M4 Max (32 / 40-core GPU) | differs |
Cores and clocks
Cores
A16 (12P + 4E)
Bno data
no data for BCores of different types may differ in performance.
Platform
Process node
A3 nm
B3 nm
equal
Memory and interfaces
Memory type
AUnified memory
BUnified memory
equalMax memory capacity
Ano data
B128 GB
no data for AIntegrated graphics
AApple M3 Max (30 / 40-core GPU)
BApple M4 Max (32 / 40-core GPU)
differs
“More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).
Compare with AI
An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.
Questions and answers
Do these CPUs have integrated graphics?
Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU): Apple M3 Max (30 / 40-core GPU). Apple M4 Max: Apple M4 Max (32 / 40-core GPU).
Which is faster: Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) or Apple M4 Max?
Apple M4 Max leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: multi-thread performance. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Apple — specifications of Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU), specifications of Apple M4 Maxchecked November 14, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.3.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.