Xeon E-2146G vs Apple M4 (10 cores)
Aggregate performance score
Apple M4 (10 cores) outperforms Xeon E-2146G by a whopping 165% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 239 | 914 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 22.89 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Apple Apple M4 | Intel Xeon E |
| Power efficiency | 52.24 | 9.85 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Coffee Lake-S WS (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 7 May 2024 (less than a year ago) | 12 July 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $317 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G 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 | 10 (Deca-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 10 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 154 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 28 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
Security technologies
M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Apple M4 10-core GPU | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |
| Max video memory | no data | 128 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.15 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over VGA | no data | N/A |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.08 | 8.33 |
| Recency | 7 May 2024 | 12 July 2018 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 6 |
| Threads | 10 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 80 Watt |
Apple M4 (10 cores) has a 165.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 66.7% more physical cores, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
Xeon E-2146G, on the other hand, has 20% more threads.
The M4 (10 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E-2146G in performance tests.
Note that Apple M4 (10 cores) is a desktop processor while Xeon E-2146G is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 (10 cores) and Xeon E-2146G, 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.
