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, while the Mac lineup has nearly completed its transition away from Intel chips. Apple has far more devices with its own silicon than Intel’s now—all that remain are the higher-end Mac mini and the Mac Pro— and before the end of 2023, every product Apple makes will likely be powered by a home-grown chip.
What’s remarkable about Apple silicon is its performance—major PC and Android chip manufacturers can’t ignore Apple’s chips because they’re being outpaced. But all chips aren’t created equally. Understanding the performance differences between each chip will help with your buying decisions, especially when you’re deciding between iPhone 14 or MacBook models. Knowing how each chip performs gives you a better idea of what products to buy and whether or not it’s worth your money to step up to a higher model.
Let’s take a look at how the new processors compares with the rest of the processors in the iPhone, iPad, and Mac lineup and see how each performs and what that means to you. For the sake of consistency, we’ve used Geekbench 5 benchmarks. (The results are ll our own, but we’ve checked our numbers against the Geekbench database to be sure the results are expected.) Here’s every chip and how the benchmarks compare with each other.
Every processor compared
Before we get into the individual processor, let’s let the chips fall where they may. It’s a somewhat predictable chart of course, with the M1 Pro/Max Macs at the top, followed by a mix of iPads and iPhones. But there are still some fascinating results: Owners of the iPad Pro can say their tablet is about as fast as a MacBook Air and that wouldn’t be an exaggeration. And the difference between the $399 iPhone SE and the $899 iPhone 14 isn’t as huge as their price difference indicates.
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.
| Processor | Performance cores | Efficiency cores | Graphics cores | Neural Engine | RAM | Transistors | Thermal Design Power | Devices |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A16 Bionic | 2 at 3.46GHz | 4 at 2.02GHz | 5 | 16-core | 8GB | 16 billion | 5W | iPhone 14 Pro |
| A15 Bionic | 2 at 3.22GHz | 4 at 1.82GHz | 5 | 16-core | 8GB | 15 billion | 6W | iPhone 14 |
| A15 Bionic | 2 at 3.22GHz | 4 at 1.82GHz | 4 | 16-core | 8GB | 15 billion | 6W | iPhone 13, iPhone SE |
| A14 Bionic | 2 at 3.1 GHz | 4 at 1.8GHz | 4 | 16-core | 6GB | 11.8 billion | 6W | iPhone 12 |
Now let’s look at how each processor performs. Not surprisingly, the A16 Bionic in the iPhone 14 Pro is the fastest. The iPhone 14 and iPhone 13 both have an A15 Bionic processor, but the iPhone 13 has one fewer GPU core than the iPhone 13 Pro, which gives it better graphics performance.
Apple still sells the iPhone 12, which has an A14 Bionic. It’s actually not much slower than the iPhone 13’s A15 Bionic–the specs between the two processors are practically the same, with the A15 Bionic’s performance cores having a slightly faster clock speed and more RAM. If price is the main priority over the camera and other features, consider the iPhone 12 instead of the iPhone 13.
The speed difference is more obvious between the iPhone 12’s A14 Bionic and the chips in the iPhone 14 models. This could be the last hurrah for the A14 Bionic, since the iPhone 12 will be replaced by the 13 as the low-cost option with Apple’s next major iPhone rollout next fall, though it’s possible it makes its way into the next Apple TV revision.
iPad processors
The staggered release of Apple’s iPad lineup creates an odd-looking performance order of CPU and its device.
| Processor | Performance cores | Efficiency cores | Graphics cores | Neural Engine | RAM | Transistors | Thermal Design Power | Devices |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | 4 at 3.2GHz | 4 at 2.06GHz | 8 | 16-core | 8GB | 16 billion | 14W | iPad Pro 12.9” & 11″, iPad Air |
| A15 Bionic | 2 at 2.93GHz | 4 at 1.82GHz | 5 | 16-core | 4GB | 15 billion | 6W | iPad mini |
| A13 Bionic | 2 at 2.65GHz | 4 at 1.8GHz | 4 | 8-core | 4GB | 8.5 billion | 6W | 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 slight, which is probably one of the reasons why Apple went with an M1 when it upgraded the iPad Air in 2022. The A15 Bionic in this tablet must be clocked down to maintain a proper 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 going away after a fall update, which would make the end of that processor.
The M1-equipped iPad Pros and the iPad Air are the fastest models, and the gap between them and the iPad and iPad mini is significant. The staggered release makes it difficult to predict what Apple will do to the CPUs in the iPad and iPad mini; the iPad will probably get the A15 Bionic in its next upgrade, but what about the iPad mini? Apple could opt to give it an M1 or M2 processor to distinguish it from the entry level iPad, though the mini’s small frame means it’s more likely to get the A16.
Mac processors
With Apple’s M-series of chips for the Mac, the company’s release schedule involves the base version in 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 with the new 13-inch MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air in the summer of 2022, right after WWDC. The M2 replaces the M1 in those Macs, but Apple may keep around M1 models to offer as low-cost options, such as the $999 M1 MacBook Air.
| Processor | Performance cores | Efficiency cores | Graphics cores | Neural Engine | Base RAM | Transistors | Thermal Design Power | Device |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2 | 4 at 3.49GHz | 4 at 2.06GHz | 10 | 16-core | 8GB | 20 billion | 15W | 13″ MacBook Pro, MacBook Air |
| M2 | 4 at 3.49GHz | 4 at 2.06GHz | 8 | 16-core | 8GB | 20 billion | 15W | MacBook Air |
| M1 Ultra | 16 at 3.2GHz | 4 at 2.06GHz | 64 | 32-core | 64GB | 114 billion | 60W | Mac Studio |
| M1 Ultra | 16 at 3.2GHz | 4 at 2.06GHz | 48 | 32-core | 64GB | 114 billion | 60W | Mac Studio |
| M1 Max | 8 at 3.2GHz | 2 at 2.06GHz | 32 | 16-core | 32GB | 16 billion | 14W | 16” MacBook Pro, Mac Studio |
| M1 Max | 8 at 3.2GHz | 2 at 2.06GHz | 24 | 16-core | 32GB | 16 billion | 14W | 16″ MacBook Pro, Mac Studio |
| M1 Pro | 8 at 3.2GHz | 2 at 2.06GHz | 16 | 16-core | 16GB | 16 billion | 14W | 14” & 16” MacBook Pro |
| M1 Pro | 6 at 3.2GHz | 2 at 2.06GHz | 14 | 16-core | 16GB | 16 billion | 14W | 14” MacBook Pro |
| M1 | 4 at 3.2GHz | 4 at 2.06GHz | 8 | 16-core | 8GB | 16 billion | 14W | 13” MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, 24″ iMac, Mac mini |
| M1 | 4 at 3.2GHz | 4 at 2.06GHz | 7 | 16-core | 8GB | 16 billion | 14W | MacBook Air, 24″ iMac |
With the M2, Apple claims an 18 percent improvement in general CPU performance over the M1. In the multi-core CPU test, we are able to confirm Apple’s claim. The single-core CPU test showed a lower 13 percent increase for the M2.
The M1 Ultra is a beast of a chip, doubling the CPU multi-core performance of the M1 Max, which has half as many CPU cores. It blazes in GPU performance too.
As for the M1 Max, it separates itself from the M1 Pro with its graphics performance—the 32-core GPU gives it a big boost. The only device we haven’t personally tested is the 8-core CPU, 14-core GPU of the M1 Pro in the $1,999 14-inch MacBook Pro, but online benchmarks show CPU performance around 20 percent slower than the 10-core CPU, 16-core GPU M1 Pro.
An interesting comparison between the 8-core CPU M1 Pro and the low-end M1 can be found. 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 M1-based $1,499 13-inch MacBook Pro. In terms of just pure performance, you’re paying a little more than a dollar per percentage point.
The chip that started it all, the good ol’ M1, may seem slow compared to the M1 Pro and M1 Max—but that’s not to undermine Apple’s original Mac processor. Remember, the M1 blows past the Intel processors it replaced, resulting in a significant price/performance value.
