Celeron 1000M vs Apple M3 Max 16-Core
Aggregate performance score
Apple M3 Max 16-Core outperforms Celeron 1000M by a whopping 3760% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 194 | 2746 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple M3 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 31.36 | 1.81 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 30 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 20 January 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $86 |
Detailed specifications
M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.748 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.06 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | no data | 118 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 92000 Million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | G2 (988B) |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 78 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR3 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Apple M3 Max 40-Core GPU | Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (650 - 1000 MHz) |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.86 | 0.67 |
| Recency | 30 October 2023 | 20 January 2013 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 78 Watt | 35 Watt |
Apple M3 Max 16-Core has a 3759.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 633.3% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron 1000M, on the other hand, has 122.9% lower power consumption.
The M3 Max 16-Core is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 1000M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Celeron 1000M, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
