Microsoft SQ1 vs Apple M3 Max 16-Core
Aggregate performance score
Apple M3 Max 16-Core outperforms Microsoft SQ1 by a whopping 604% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Microsoft SQ1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 189 | 1487 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Apple M3 | Qualcomm Snapdragon |
| Power efficiency | 31.33 | 0.12 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Cortex-A76 / A55 (Kryo 495) (2019) |
| Release date | 30 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 2 October 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Microsoft SQ1 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.748 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4.06 GHz | 3 GHz |
| L3 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 7 nm |
| Number of transistors | 92000 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Microsoft SQ1 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.
| Power consumption (TDP) | 78 Watt | 3000 Watt |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M3 Max 40-Core GPU | Qualcomm Adreno 685 |
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.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.82 | 3.67 |
| Recency | 30 October 2023 | 2 October 2019 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 8 |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 78 Watt | 3000 Watt |
Apple M3 Max 16-Core has a 603.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 3746.2% lower power consumption.
The Apple M3 Max 16-Core is our recommended choice as it beats the Microsoft SQ1 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Microsoft SQ1, 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.
