Apple M4 (10-core CPU) vs Apple M5: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
Apple M5 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 +22.9%Apple M5 leads in this scenario (up to 22.9% 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 M4 (10-core CPU) is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Where Apple M5 is better1
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0 22.9% faster276 samples/min vs 224 samples/min
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 22.9%
Blender Benchmark 4.5.0
CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom · samples/min, higher is better
Apple M4 (10-core CPU)224.4 samples/minApple M5275.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (89)
A · 224B · 2760200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. Apple M5 is ahead by 22.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · 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.
- B · Apple M5
275.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 42 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 42 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 270.87–280.37; submissions 2025-10-17 to 2026-08-12; 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 5.1.1CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 215.8 | 250.5 | B +16% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 214.2 | 242.3 | B +13.2% |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 216.8 | 247.8 | B +14.3% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (8)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 231.3 | 226.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 230.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 232 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 214.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 234.2 | 248.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 222.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 220.1 | 247.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0CPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom | 205.5 | 245.8 | reference |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · Apple M4 (10-core CPU) | B · Apple M5 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cores and clocks | |||
| CoresCores of different types may differ in performance. | 10 (4P + 6E) | 10 (4P + 6E) | equal |
| Platform | |||
| Process node | 3 nm | 3 nm | equal |
| Memory and interfaces | |||
| Memory type | Unified memory | Unified memory | equal |
| Max memory capacity | no data | 32 GB | no data for A |
| Integrated graphics | Apple M4 (8 / 10-core GPU) | Apple M5 (8 / 10-core GPU) | differs |
Cores and clocks
Cores
A10 (4P + 6E)
B10 (4P + 6E)
equalCores 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
B32 GB
no data for AIntegrated graphics
AApple M4 (8 / 10-core GPU)
BApple M5 (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 M4 (10-core CPU): Apple M4 (8 / 10-core GPU). Apple M5: Apple M5 (8 / 10-core GPU).
Which is faster: Apple M4 (10-core CPU) or Apple M5?
Apple M5 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 M4 (10-core CPU), specifications of Apple M5checked 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 3.6.0, 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.