Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) vs Apple M4 Pro (12-core CPU): specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) 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
A +22.6%Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) leads in this scenario (up to 22.6% 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 better2
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 22.6% faster415 samples/min vs 338 samples/min
Cores 4 more16 (12P + 4E) vs 12 (8P + 4E)
Where Apple M4 Pro (12-core CPU) is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- A ahead by 22.6%
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 Pro (12-core CPU)338.3 samples/minPosition among tested models (89)
B · 338A · 4150200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) is ahead by 22.6% 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 Pro (12-core CPU)
338.3 samples/min · community measurement, sample 77 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 77 submissions (9 outliers excluded), interquartile range 332.8–340.24; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-08-18; 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 | 334.2 | A +22% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 408.2 | 336.2 | A +21.4% |
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 | 325.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 399.6 | 322.5 | 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 | 336.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 418.3 | — | no pair |
| 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 | 333.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 413.8 | 331.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 382.5 | 329.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 378.3 | 317.1 | 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 Pro (12-core CPU) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cores and clocks | |||
| CoresCores of different types may differ in performance. | 16 (12P + 4E) | 12 (8P + 4E) | A: 4 more |
| Platform | |||
| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm | equal |
| Memory and interfaces | |||
| Memory type | Unified memory | Unified memory | equal |
| Integrated graphics | Apple M3 Max (30 / 40-core GPU) | Apple M4 Pro (16 / 20-core GPU) | differs |
Cores and clocks
Cores
A16 (12P + 4E)
B12 (8P + 4E)
A: 4 moreCores of different types may differ in performance.
Platform
Process node
A3 nm
B3 nm
equal
Memory and interfaces
Memory type
AUnified memory
BUnified memory
equalIntegrated graphics
AApple M3 Max (30 / 40-core GPU)
BApple M4 Pro (16 / 20-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 Pro (12-core CPU): Apple M4 Pro (16 / 20-core GPU).
Which is faster: Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) or Apple M4 Pro (12-core CPU)?
Apple M3 Max (16-core CPU) 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 Pro (12-core CPU)checked 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.