At the heart of every Apple device is an Apple processor. Apple has been using its own processors in its iPhones and iPads for some time now, while the Mac line has almost completed the transition from Intel chips. Right now, Apple has a lot more devices with its own silicon than Intel – all that’s left is the higher-end Mac mini and Mac Pro, and before the end of 2023, every Apple product will likely run on its own chip.
What’s remarkable about Apple’s silicon is its performance: the big PC and Android processor makers can’t ignore Apple’s chips because they’re ahead of them. But not all chips are created equally. Understanding the performance differences of each chip will help you make your buying decision, especially when you’re choosing between iPhone 14 or MacBook models. Knowing how each chip works gives you a better idea of which products to buy and whether or not to buy a more powerful model.
Let’s take a look at how the new processors compare to the rest of the processors in the iPhone, iPad, and Mac lineup and see how each performs and what it means for you. For consistency, we used Geekbench 5 benchmarks. (The results are all our own, but we checked our numbers against the Geekbench database to make sure the results are as expected.) Here’s each chip and how the benchmarks compare to each other.
Each processor compared
Before we get to the individual processor, let’s let the chips fall where they can. Of course, this is a somewhat predictable chart, with M1 Pro/Max Macs at the top, followed by iPads and iPhones. But there are also some impressive results: iPad Pro owners can say that their tablet is as fast as a MacBook Air, and that’s no exaggeration. And the difference between the $399 iPhone SE and the $899 iPhone 14 isn’t as big as their price difference shows.
iPhone processors
Before we compare the performance of each iPhone processor, let’s take a look at the specifications so we can understand the differences between them.
CPU | Performance Cores | Efficiency Cores | Graphics cores | neural engine | RAM | transistors | Thermal Power Scheme | Devices |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A16 Bionic | 2 at 3.46 GHz | 4 at 2.02 GHz | 5 | 16 core | 8 GB | 16 billion | 5 W | iphone 14 pro |
A15 Bionic | 2 at 3.22 GHz | 4 at 1.82 GHz | 5 | 16 core | 8 GB | 15 billion | 6 W | iphone 14 |
A15 Bionic | 2 at 3.22 GHz | 4 at 1.82 GHz | four | 16 core | 8 GB | 15 billion | 6 W | iPhone 13, iPhone SE |
A14 Bionic | 2 at 3.1 GHz | 4 at 1.8 GHz | four | 16 core | 6 GB | 11.8 billion | 6 W | iphone 12 |
Now let’s see how each processor works. Unsurprisingly, the A16 Bionic in the iPhone 14 Pro is the fastest. Both the iPhone 14 and iPhone 13 feature the A15 Bionic processor, but the iPhone 13 has one less GPU core than the iPhone 13 Pro, resulting in better graphics performance.
Apple is still selling the iPhone 12 with the A14 Bionic processor. It’s actually not much slower than the A15 Bionic in the iPhone 13 – the specs of the two processors are pretty much the same, and the performance cores of the A15 Bionic have a slightly higher clock speed and more RAM. If price is more important than the camera and other features, consider the iPhone 12 over the iPhone 13.
The speed difference is more apparent between the A14 Bionic in the iPhone 12 and the chips in the iPhone 14 models. This could be the last hurray for the A14 Bionic as the iPhone 12 will be replaced by the 13 as a low-cost option with Apple’s next major iPhone release next fall, though, maybe it will make its way into the next version of Apple TV.
processors for iPad
The phased release of the Apple iPad line creates a strange order of performance for the processor and its device.
CPU | Performance Cores | Efficiency Cores | Graphics cores | neural engine | RAM | transistors | Thermal Power Scheme | Devices |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 | 4 at 3.2 GHz | 4 at 2.06 GHz | eight | 16 core | 8 GB | 16 billion | 14 W | iPad Pro 12.9 and 11 inches, iPad Air |
A15 Bionic | 2 at 2.93 GHz | 4 at 1.82 GHz | 5 | 16 core | 4GB | 15 billion | 6 W | iPad mini |
A13 Bionic | 2 at 2.65 GHz | 4 at 1.8 GHz | four | 8 core | 4GB | 8.5 billion | 6 W | ipad |
The A15 Bionic is newer than the A14 Bionic that was in the previous iPad Air, but the performance gap between the two is small, which is likely one of the reasons Apple chose the M1 when updating the iPad Air in 2022. The A15 Bionic in this tablet needs to be underclocked to maintain the correct operating temperature, so it’s not as fast as the A15 Bionic in the iPhone 13 Pro. The A13 Bionic in the entry-level iPad is likely to disappear after the fall update that ends this processor.
The iPad Pro with M1 and iPad Air are the fastest models, and the gap between them and the iPad and iPad mini is significant. The phased release makes it hard to predict what Apple will do with processors in the iPad and iPad mini; The iPad will probably get the A15 Bionic in the next update, but what about the iPad mini? Apple may opt for an M1 or M2 processor to differentiate it from the entry-level iPad, though the mini’s small body means it’s more likely to get an A16.
Mac Processors
For Apple’s M-series chips for Mac, the company’s release schedule includes a base version for the MacBook Air, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and other Macs. Apple then modifies it to create higher end versions.
The latest M-series chip is the M2, which was released alongside the new 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air in the summer of 2022, right after WWDC. The M2 replaces the M1 in these Macs, but Apple could keep the M1 models to offer low-end options like the $999 M1 MacBook Air.
CPU | Performance Cores | Efficiency Cores | Graphics cores | neural engine | Base RAM | transistors | Thermal Power Scheme | Device |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M2 | 4 at 3.49 GHz | 4 at 2.06 GHz | ten | 16 core | 8 GB | 20 billion | 15 W | 13-inch MacBook Pro, MacBook Air |
M2 | 4 at 3.49 GHz | 4 at 2.06 GHz | eight | 16 core | 8 GB | 20 billion | 15 W | Macbook Air |
M1 Ultra | 16 at 3.2 GHz | 4 at 2.06 GHz | 64 | 32 cores | 64 GB | 114 billion | 60 W | Studio Mac |
M1 Ultra | 16 at 3.2 GHz | 4 at 2.06 GHz | 48 | 32 cores | 64 GB | 114 billion | 60 W | Studio Mac |
M1 Max. | 8 at 3.2 GHz | 2 at 2.06 GHz | 32 | 16 core | 32 GB | 16 billion | 14 W | 16″ MacBook Pro, Mac Studio |
M1 Max. | 8 at 3.2 GHz | 2 at 2.06 GHz | 24 | 16 core | 32 GB | 16 billion | 14 W | 16″ MacBook Pro, Mac Studio |
M1 Pro | 8 at 3.2 GHz | 2 at 2.06 GHz | 16 | 16 core | 16 GB | 16 billion | 14 W | Macbook Pro 14 and 16 inches |
M1 Pro | 6 at 3.2 GHz | 2 at 2.06 GHz | fourteen | 16 core | 16 GB | 16 billion | 14 W | 14 inch Macbook Pro |
M1 | 4 at 3.2 GHz | 4 at 2.06 GHz | eight | 16 core | 8 GB | 16 billion | 14 W | MacBook Pro 13″, MacBook Air, iMac 24″, Mac mini |
M1 | 4 at 3.2 GHz | 4 at 2.06 GHz | 7 | 16 core | 8 GB | 16 billion | 14 W | MacBook Air, iMac 24″ |
Apple claims that with the M2, overall processor performance has increased by 18 percent compared to the M1. In the multi-core processor test, we can confirm Apple’s claim. The single-core test showed a smaller 13 percent gain for the M2.
The M1 Ultra is a monster chip, doubling the multi-core CPU performance of the M1 Max, which has half as many CPU cores. It also impresses with GPU performance.
As for the M1 Max, it differs from the M1 Pro in its graphics performance – the 32-core GPU gives it a significant boost. The only device we haven’t personally tested is the 8-core processor and 14-core M1 Pro GPU in the $1999 14-inch MacBook Pro, but online tests show CPU performance about 20 percent slower than 10-core processor. 16-core M1 Pro GPU.
An interesting comparison can be found between the 8-core M1 Pro and the younger M1. The 8-core M1 Pro offers about a 30 percent increase, and the $1,999 14-inch MacBook Pro costs about 33 percent more than the $1,499 M1-based 13-inch MacBook Pro. When it comes to pure performance alone, you’re paying a little over a dollar per percentage point.
The chip that started it all, the good old M1, may feel slow compared to the M1 Pro and M1 Max, but that shouldn’t undermine Apple’s original Mac processor. Remember that the M1 is ahead of the Intel processors it has replaced, resulting in a significant price/performance ratio.