FR
Apple M1 vs Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Apple M1 on one side and the Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 on the other side, also their respective performances with the benchmarks. The first is dedicated to the laptop sector, It has 8 cores, 8 threads, a maximum frequency of 3.2GHz. The second is used on the server segment, it has a total of 14 cores, 28 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 3.3 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench and Cinebench.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specification comparison:
| Processor | Apple M1 | Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 | ||||||
| Market (main) | Laptop | Server | ||||||
| ISA | ARMv8.5-A (64-bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) | ||||||
| Microarchitecture | Firestorm, Icestorm | Broadwell | ||||||
| Core name | Firestorm, Icestorm | Broadwell-EP | ||||||
| Family | M series | Xeon E5-2600 v4 | ||||||
| Part number(s), S-Spec | APL1102, T8103 | BX80660E52680V4, CM8066002031501, QK92, SR2N7 | ||||||
| Release date | Q4 2020 | Q1 2016 | ||||||
| Lithography | 5 nm FinFET N5 | 14 nm | ||||||
| Transistors | 33,700,000,000 | 4,700,000,000 | ||||||
| Cores | 8 | 14 | ||||||
| Threads | 8 | 28 | ||||||
| Base frequency | 2.06 GHz | 2.4 GHz | ||||||
| Turbo frequency | 3.2 GHz | 3.3 GHz | ||||||
| Energy cores | 4x Apple Icestorm @ 2.06 GHz |
- | ||||||
| High performance cores | 4x Apple Firestorm @ 3.2 GHz |
14 Cores 28 Threads @ 2.4 / 3.3 GHz | ||||||
| Cache memory | 16 MB | 35 MB | ||||||
| Max memory capacity | 16 GB | 1.5 TB | ||||||
| Memory types | LPDDR4X-4266 (2133 MHz) |
DDR4 1600/1866/2133/2400 | ||||||
| Max # of memory channels | 2 | 4 | ||||||
| Max memory bandwidth | 66.7 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s | ||||||
| Max PCIe lanes | - | 40 | ||||||
| TDP | 14 W | 120 W | ||||||
| Suggested PSU | - | 650W ATX Power Supply  | ||||||
| GPU integrated graphics | Apple M1 GPU 8-Core | None | ||||||
| GPU cores | 8 | - | ||||||
| GPU execution units | 128 | - | ||||||
| GPU shading units | 1,024 | - | ||||||
| GPU clock | 1,278 MHz | - | ||||||
| GPU FP32 floating point | 2,617 GFLOPS | - | ||||||
| Socket | SoC | LGA2011-3 | ||||||
| Compatible motherboard | - | Socket LGA 2011-3 Motherboard | ||||||
| AI accelerator | AI accelerator 16-core |
- | ||||||
| AI computing operations per seconds | 11 TOPS | - | ||||||
| Crypto engine | - |
AES New Instructions, Secure Key | ||||||
| Security | - |
OS Guard, Trusted Execution Technology, Execute Disable Bit | ||||||
| Max display resolution | 6016 x 3384@60Hz (Thunderbolt), 3840 x 2160@60Hz (HDMI) |
- | ||||||
| Video decoding | H.265, HEVC, VP9 | - | ||||||
| Video encoding | H.265, HEVC | - | ||||||
| Connectivity | 2 Thunderbolt, 2 USB-C, 1 HDMI 2.0 | - | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 single thread | 197 | 119 | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 multi-thread | 1,063 | 1,984 | ||||||
| Cinebench R20 single thread | 412 | 306 | ||||||
| Cinebench R20 multi-thread | 2,104 | 4,730 | ||||||
| PassMark single thread | 3,721 | 1,932 | ||||||
| PassMark CPU Mark | 15,015 | 18,346 | ||||||
| (Mac OS X | Linux) Geekbench 4 single core | 5,792 | 3,736 | ||||||
| (Mac OS X | Linux) Geekbench 4 multi-core | 23,220 | 36,175 | ||||||
| (macOS | Linux) Geekbench 5 single core | 1,744 | 736 | ||||||
| (macOS | Linux) Geekbench 5 multi-core | 7,657 | 8,058 | ||||||
| (SGEMM) GFLOPS Performance | 203.4 GFLOPS | 667 GFLOPS | ||||||
| (Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio | 1,659 pts / W | 301 pts / W | ||||||
| Amazon |  |
|
||||||
| eBay |  |
|
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.
Suggested PSU: We assume that we have an ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
The processor Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 has a larger number of cores, the turbo frequency of Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 is bigger, that the PDT of Apple M1 is lower. The Apple M1 was designed earlier.
Performance comparison with the benchmarks:
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench.
| Cinebench R15 - Multi-Thread & Single Thread Score | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 |
119 1,984 |
| Apple M1 |
197 1,063 |
In single core, the difference is 66%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 87%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
| Cinebench R20 - Multi-Thread & Single Thread Score | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 |
306 4,730 |
| Apple M1 |
412 2,104 |
In single core, the difference is 35%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 125%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
| PassMark - CPU Mark & single thread | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 |
1,932 18,346 |
| Apple M1 |
3,721 15,015 |
In single core, the difference is 93%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 22%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
With Mac OS X:
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - Mac OS X | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 |
3,538 30,921 |
| Apple M1 |
5,792 23,220 |
In single core, the difference is 64%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 33%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
With macOS:
| Geekbench 5 - Multi-core & Single Core Score - macOS | |
|---|---|
| Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4 |
745 8,333 |
| Apple M1 |
1,744 7,657 |
In single core, the difference is 134%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 9%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.
Equivalence:
Apple M1 Intel EquivalentApple M1 AMD EquivalentIntel Xeon E5-2680 v4 AMD EquivalentSee also:
Apple M1 MaxApple M1 Pro (10 cores)Apple M1 Pro (8 cores)Apple M1 UltraApple M2Apple M2 MaxApple M2 Pro (10 cores)Apple M2 Pro (12 cores)Apple M2 UltraDual Intel Xeon E5-2680 v2Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4Intel Xeon E5-2680 v2Intel Xeon E5-2680 v3
Disclaimer:
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.
Information:
We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer's website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.