Xeon E-2288G vs Apple M4 Pro (12 cores)
Aggregate performance score
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) outperforms Xeon E-2288G by a whopping 155% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 167 | 714 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 26.44 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | Apple M4 | Intel Xeon E |
| Power efficiency | 82.29 | 10.88 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Coffee Lake-S WS (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 29 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $539 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.592 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.51 GHz | 5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 180 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G 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) | 32 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G. 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
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G 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 both Intel® SPS and Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G 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 Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | 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 Compare | Apple M4 16-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 | 1.2 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G 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 Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.97 | 10.98 |
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 29 May 2019 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 95 Watt |
Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) has a 154.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 50% more physical cores, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 196.9% lower power consumption.
Xeon E-2288G, on the other hand, has 33.3% more threads.
The Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E-2288G in performance tests.
Note that Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) is a desktop processor while Xeon E-2288G is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 Pro (12 cores) and Xeon E-2288G, 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.
