Apple M1 vs Opteron 142
Aggregate performance score
Apple M1 outperforms Opteron 142 by a whopping 1796% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Opteron 142 and M1 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3200 | 1250 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Apple Apple M-Series |
| Power efficiency | 0.30 | no data |
| Architecture codename | SledgeHammer (2003−2005) | no data |
| Release date | September 2003 (21 year ago) | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Opteron 142 and M1 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 | 1 (Single-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.064 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 193 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 106 million | 16000 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Opteron 142 and M1 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 | 1 | no data |
| Socket | 940 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Apple M1 8-Core GPU |
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.
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 | 0.27 | 5.12 |
| Physical cores | 1 | 8 |
| Threads | 1 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
Apple M1 has a 1796.3% higher aggregate performance score, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.
The M1 is our recommended choice as it beats the Opteron 142 in performance tests.
Be aware that Opteron 142 is a server/workstation processor while Apple M1 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
