Apple M3 Pro vs Apple M4 (10-core CPU): specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
In the available comparable benchmarks the difference is below the noticeable threshold, so no significant advantage was found.
Compare with AIMulti-thread performance
≈ parityThe difference in available benchmarks is below the noticeable threshold, so there is no significant advantage.
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 Pro is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Where Apple M4 (10-core CPU) is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- 1.2% difference, within the threshold
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom · samples/min, higher is better
Apple M3 Pro227.2 samples/minApple M4 (10-core CPU)224.4 samples/minPosition among tested models (89)
B · 224A · 2270200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. The 1.2% difference is below the noticeable threshold (5%).
About the measurement and source
- A · Apple M3 Pro
227.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 41 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 41 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 221.64–253.98; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-03-14; CPU backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · Apple M4 (10-core CPU)
224.4 samples/min · community measurement, sample 244 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 244 submissions (12 outliers excluded), interquartile range 216.85–236.23; submissions 2025-07-17 to 2026-05-09; 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 (3)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 221.2 | 231.3 | B +4.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 223.4 | 234.2 | B +4.8% |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 223.7 | 222.1 | A +0.7% |
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 | 219.5 | 215.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 213.8 | 214.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 206.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 228.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 228.8 | 230.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 250.4 | 232 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 226.8 | 214.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 223.5 | 220.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 222.2 | 216.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | — | 205.5 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · Apple M3 Pro | B · Apple M4 (10-core CPU) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cores and clocks | |||
| CoresCores of different types may differ in performance. | no data | 10 (4P + 6E) | no data for A |
| Platform | |||
| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm | equal |
| Memory and interfaces | |||
| Memory type | Unified memory | Unified memory | equal |
| Max memory capacity | 36 GB | no data | no data for B |
| Integrated graphics | Apple M3 Pro (14 / 18-core GPU) | Apple M4 (8 / 10-core GPU) | differs |
Cores and clocks
Cores
Ano data
B10 (4P + 6E)
no data for ACores 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
A36 GB
Bno data
no data for BIntegrated graphics
AApple M3 Pro (14 / 18-core GPU)
BApple M4 (8 / 10-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 Pro: Apple M3 Pro (14 / 18-core GPU). Apple M4 (10-core CPU): Apple M4 (8 / 10-core GPU).
Which is faster: Apple M3 Pro or Apple M4 (10-core CPU)?
In the available comparable benchmarks the difference is below the noticeable threshold, so no significant advantage was found.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Apple — specifications of Apple M3 Pro, specifications of Apple M4 (10-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 3.2.1, 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.