Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores) vs Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores): specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores) leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIRendering and compute
B +161.4%Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores) leads in this scenario (up to 161.4% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores) is better0
No advantages found in our data.
Where Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores) is better2
Blender Benchmark 4.4.0 159.9% faster2,366 samples/min vs 910 samples/min
Compute units 6 more16 GPU cores vs 10 GPU cores
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 159.9%
Blender Benchmark 4.4.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores)910.3 samples/minApple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores)2,366.2 samples/minPosition among tested models (9, Metal)
A · 910B · 2,36602,0004,0006,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores) is ahead by 159.9% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores)
910.3 samples/min · community measurement, sample 30 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 30 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 903.98–917.77; submissions 2025-03-22 to 2025-07-16; METAL backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores)
2,366.2 samples/min · community measurement, sample 58 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 58 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 2353.19–2382.61; submissions 2025-03-20 to 2026-04-21; METAL 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 (1)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 892.1 | 2,332 | B +161.4% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (10)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 922 | 2,379.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 918.1 | 2,378 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 999.8 | 2,612.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 956 | 2,579.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 702.5 | 1,701.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 793.6 | 1,488.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 799.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 1,111.7 | 2,608.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 2,362.2 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 2,199.8 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores) | B · Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | Apple M3 | Apple M4 Pro | differs |
| Architecture | Apple Silicon | Apple Silicon | equal |
| Compute unitsSM (NVIDIA), CU (AMD) and Xe-core (Intel) are different units and are not compared numerically across vendors. | 10 GPU cores | 16 GPU cores | B: 6 more |
| Memory | |||
| Memory type | Unified memory | Unified memory | equal |
Chip
GPU chip
AApple M3
BApple M4 Pro
differsArchitecture
AApple Silicon
BApple Silicon
equalCompute units
A10 GPU cores
B16 GPU cores
B: 6 moreSM (NVIDIA), CU (AMD) and Xe-core (Intel) are different units and are not compared numerically across vendors.
Memory
Memory type
AUnified memory
BUnified memory
equal
“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
Which is faster: Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores) or Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores)?
Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores) leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Apple — specifications of Apple M3 (GPU, 10 cores), specifications of Apple M4 Pro (GPU, 16 cores)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 3.6.0, 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 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.3.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.