Is one M4 chip the exact same speed as the rest of them?

[mindquest]

Is a M4 chip of the same type have the same speed?

Wondering if you bought two MacBook pros with the same chip would they be the same? Just curious if there is any great variation in the same chip

 

[Bigwaff]

Is a M4 chip of the same type have the same speed?

Wondering if you bought two MacBook pros with the same chip would they be the same? Just curious if there is any great variation in the same chip

Yes..Yes… Nope.

 

[mindquest]

Yes..Yes… Nope.

Thanks I asked because I saw someone on another community say he bought 3 MacBook pros and one had a lower speed. Didn’t make sense how that could be

 

[mr_roboto]

Thanks I asked because I saw someone on another community say he bought 3 MacBook pros and one had a lower speed. Didn’t make sense how that could be

The only circumstance where it happens is if they aren't all exactly the same member of the M4 family. So far, Apple always clocks the Pro/Max chips very slightly faster than the base non-Pro/Max chip.

It isn't by much though. In the M4 family, the base M4 runs at up to 4464 MHz, while Pro/Max go up to 4512 MHz, about 1% more.

 

[streetfunk]

i disagree.
i have a M4mini-base, a M4 studio-max, and have had a M4mini-pro.

i do/did run the exactly same tasks on all of them.
(Music related / realtime tasks)

my studio-max has something like 7-8% better SC speed compared to my mini-base.
My Mini-pro was worser than my mini-base. I even opened a thread here to ask if i have a lemon.
The query could be solved to some degree. Based on the fact that benchmarks are higher with a fresh -completly empty- mac vs. a full bloated migrated system. But i made also some benchmark tests with a clean install bevore i gave my mini-pro back. Somehow, it was a lemon.
My verdict from there is: There is some variance possible in my opinion vs. exactly same chip model.
Maybe unlikely. But not completly impossible. That´s my opinion now.

Next point, not relevant for most tasks, but it is for my realtime based music making.
The studio max is set up more agressive vs. rising clock speed @ higher loads.

Some folks might even not be aware of it, most will, ....our macs do not run at paper spec clock speeds !
These are paper values. We might reach full clock speeds doing benchmarks or some other hefty tasks like rendering. Otherwise, not exactly.

Music making is different here compared to other tasks. Is it production work in your DAW, or realtime playing, ...means: you can literally turn your mac into a realtime playable "synthesizer" sort of Instrument.

Here vs. that specific usage is this whole "clock speed" thing a topic.
The CPU load while playing is not allways same. And usually not at 100%. But it might increase dramatically in some specific moments. Even if it´s just for very short moments. For example when we just play more notes at the same time. Or sustained notes, or worst: both.

If you render a video, regardless if things run faster or a smidge slower, the endresult is same.
Not so in realtime play music making. Cause you might run into audio dropouts. and that´s a nogo. Anyway for any recording situation but also live on stage. The Audio will start to have some "crackling noises" going on

my M4macs would run usually at around 3.9ghz while playing.
At higher loads they run up to 4.2 ghz.
A studio-max is definitly increasing clockspeed quicker towards 4.2ghz.
Past those 4.2 is the difference even much bigger compared to my mini-base. The studio max goes much better and quicker up to 4.3 ghz.

It´s internal setting to speed up the clock is more agressive compared to the mini-base. At least i came to that conclusion. I can´t tell you in this regard about the mini-pro.
The mini-pro has definitly the same adjustability in the general settings as the studio max has. The mini-base doesnt have that "power" setting.
But the mini-pro runs much warmer or hotter at these tasks.
So i see a chance that the studio max has an even more agressive internaöl "speed-up" setting than the mini pro.
i had the 14 core mini-pro, and the 16core studio max.

I´d not care too much if any for most usages. But vs. realtime play audio applications could one do.
There is in the meantime nifty audio SW around.
There are several different realtime audio applications that have started to become common usages.
For example live- mixing duties at concerts and other venues like Theatres.
Some folks effectivly replace (multi-) 10k $$ mixing desks with just a macbook doing FOH jobs ( thats: Front of House / your audio mixing station in front of the stage)


while if you render something like a Video, it might just take a little longer.
Audio differs here !
The audio dropouts would be very annoying in a live situation, to say the least.

to notes: the -to me- main leading audio app for such usages runs on only one core.
Which means in turnaround that this creates a very good base for CPU/computer comparisons
( leave it at that, i won´t answer what app i´m refering to. it´s too off topic. and i´m not interested to run same debates again)


edit:
which also means: even if one would only run a single threaded app, like i mostly do, could a studio-max be the better solution

 

[maflynn]

if you bought two MacBook pros with the same chip would they be the same?

There's something called the silicon lottery, where one chip could run a tiny bit faster, or slower, cooler or hotter. In the PC realm, this is more visible when enthusiasts try to over clock their systems. Some people can push their system higher then someone else, even of the components are higher, and that's due to slight imperfections in the silicon.

I bought a M4 Max Studio, it had some connectivity issues, and I returned it, but it was getting about 2% higher score in Cinebench, then my now current M4 Max Studio, same exact configuration, just a different computer.

 

[mindquest]

i disagree.
i have a M4mini-base, a M4 studio-max, and have had a M4mini-pro.

i do/did run the exactly same tasks on all of them.
(Music related / realtime tasks)

my studio-max has something like 7-8% better SC speed compared to my mini-base.
My Mini-pro was worser than my mini-base. I even opened a thread here to ask if i have a lemon.
The query could be solved to some degree. Based on the fact that benchmarks are higher with a fresh -completly empty- mac vs. a full bloated migrated system. But i made also some benchmark tests with a clean install bevore i gave my mini-pro back. Somehow, it was a lemon.
My verdict from there is: There is some variance possible in my opinion vs. exactly same chip model.
Maybe unlikely. But not completly impossible. That´s my opinion now.

Next point, not relevant for most tasks, but it is for my realtime based music making.
The studio max is set up more agressive vs. rising clock speed @ higher loads.

Some folks might even not be aware of it, most will, ....our macs do not run at paper spec clock speeds !
These are paper values. We might reach full clock speeds doing benchmarks or some other hefty tasks like rendering. Otherwise, not exactly.

Music making is different here compared to other tasks. Is it production work in your DAW, or realtime playing, ...means: you can literally turn your mac into a realtime playable "synthesizer" sort of Instrument.

Here vs. that specific usage is this whole "clock speed" thing a topic.
The CPU load while playing is not allways same. And usually not at 100%. But it might increase dramatically in some specific moments. Even if it´s just for very short moments. For example when we just play more notes at the same time. Or sustained notes, or worst: both.

If you render a video, regardless if things run faster or a smidge slower, the endresult is same.
Not so in realtime play music making. Cause you might run into audio dropouts. and that´s a nogo. Anyway for any recording situation but also live on stage. The Audio will start to have some "crackling noises" going on

my M4macs would run usually at around 3.9ghz while playing.
At higher loads they run up to 4.2 ghz.
A studio-max is definitly increasing clockspeed quicker towards 4.2ghz.
Past those 4.2 is the difference even much bigger compared to my mini-base. The studio max goes much better and quicker up to 4.3 ghz.

It´s internal setting to speed up the clock is more agressive compared to the mini-base. At least i came to that conclusion. I can´t tell you in this regard about the mini-pro.
The mini-pro has definitly the same adjustability in the general settings as the studio max has. The mini-base doesnt have that "power" setting.
But the mini-pro runs much warmer or hotter at these tasks.
So i see a chance that the studio max has an even more agressive internaöl "speed-up" setting than the mini pro.
i had the 14 core mini-pro, and the 16core studio max.

I´d not care too much if any for most usages. But vs. realtime play audio applications could one do.
There is in the meantime nifty audio SW around.
There are several different realtime audio applications that have started to become common usages.
For example live- mixing duties at concerts and other venues like Theatres.
Some folks effectivly replace (multi-) 10k $$ mixing desks with just a macbook doing FOH jobs ( thats: Front of House / your audio mixing station in front of the stage)


while if you render something like a Video, it might just take a little longer.
Audio differs here !
The audio dropouts would be very annoying in a live situation, to say the least.

to notes: the -to me- main leading audio app for such usages runs on only one core.
Which means in turnaround that this creates a very good base for CPU/computer comparisons
( leave it at that, i won´t answer what app i´m refering to. it´s too off topic. and i´m not interested to run same debates again)


edit:
which also means: even if one would only run a single threaded app, like i mostly do, could a studio-max be the better solution

Thank for taking the time to give such a detailed response!

 

[mindquest]

There's something called the silicon lottery, where one chip could run a tiny bit faster, or slower, cooler or hotter. In the PC realm, this is more visible when enthusiasts try to over clock their systems. Some people can push their system higher then someone else, even of the components are higher, and that's due to slight imperfections in the silicon.

I bought a M4 Max Studio, it had some connectivity issues, and I returned it, but it was getting about 2% higher score in Cinebench, then my now current M4 Max Studio, same exact configuration, just a different computer.

Thanks for the replay! Sounds like it is possible but the difference would be so small to even think about

 

[powerslave65]

Silicon chips are like baked cookies. No 2 are exactly alike.

 

[maflynn]

Silicon chips are like baked cookies. No 2 are exactly alike.

Gotta love AI

 

[mcnallym]

i disagree.
i have a M4mini-base, a M4 studio-max, and have had a M4mini-pro.

i do/did run the exactly same tasks on all of them.
(Music related / realtime tasks)

my studio-max has something like 7-8% better SC speed compared to my mini-base.
My Mini-pro was worser than my mini-base. I even opened a thread here to ask if i have a lemon.
The query could be solved to some degree. Based on the fact that benchmarks are higher with a fresh -completly empty- mac vs. a full bloated migrated system. But i made also some benchmark tests with a clean install bevore i gave my mini-pro back. Somehow, it was a lemon.
My verdict from there is: There is some variance possible in my opinion vs. exactly same chip model.
Maybe unlikely. But not completly impossible. That´s my opinion now.

Next point, not relevant for most tasks, but it is for my realtime based music making.
The studio max is set up more agressive vs. rising clock speed @ higher loads.

Some folks might even not be aware of it, most will, ....our macs do not run at paper spec clock speeds !
These are paper values. We might reach full clock speeds doing benchmarks or some other hefty tasks like rendering. Otherwise, not exactly.

Music making is different here compared to other tasks. Is it production work in your DAW, or realtime playing, ...means: you can literally turn your mac into a realtime playable "synthesizer" sort of Instrument.

Here vs. that specific usage is this whole "clock speed" thing a topic.
The CPU load while playing is not allways same. And usually not at 100%. But it might increase dramatically in some specific moments. Even if it´s just for very short moments. For example when we just play more notes at the same time. Or sustained notes, or worst: both.

If you render a video, regardless if things run faster or a smidge slower, the endresult is same.
Not so in realtime play music making. Cause you might run into audio dropouts. and that´s a nogo. Anyway for any recording situation but also live on stage. The Audio will start to have some "crackling noises" going on

my M4macs would run usually at around 3.9ghz while playing.
At higher loads they run up to 4.2 ghz.
A studio-max is definitly increasing clockspeed quicker towards 4.2ghz.
Past those 4.2 is the difference even much bigger compared to my mini-base. The studio max goes much better and quicker up to 4.3 ghz.

It´s internal setting to speed up the clock is more agressive compared to the mini-base. At least i came to that conclusion. I can´t tell you in this regard about the mini-pro.
The mini-pro has definitly the same adjustability in the general settings as the studio max has. The mini-base doesnt have that "power" setting.
But the mini-pro runs much warmer or hotter at these tasks.
So i see a chance that the studio max has an even more agressive internaöl "speed-up" setting than the mini pro.
i had the 14 core mini-pro, and the 16core studio max.

I´d not care too much if any for most usages. But vs. realtime play audio applications could one do.
There is in the meantime nifty audio SW around.
There are several different realtime audio applications that have started to become common usages.
For example live- mixing duties at concerts and other venues like Theatres.
Some folks effectivly replace (multi-) 10k $$ mixing desks with just a macbook doing FOH jobs ( thats: Front of House / your audio mixing station in front of the stage)


while if you render something like a Video, it might just take a little longer.
Audio differs here !
The audio dropouts would be very annoying in a live situation, to say the least.

to notes: the -to me- main leading audio app for such usages runs on only one core.
Which means in turnaround that this creates a very good base for CPU/computer comparisons
( leave it at that, i won´t answer what app i´m refering to. it´s too off topic. and i´m not interested to run same debates again)


edit:
which also means: even if one would only run a single threaded app, like i mostly do, could a studio-max be the better solution

Whilst interesting that is not the question that was asked, you have taken an M4, an M4 Pro and an M4 Max. These are not the same SoC and what was asked was if bought two MBP with the SAME SoC would the SoC run at different speeds.

He didn’t ask if bought an M4 MBP, M4 Pro MBP, M4 Max MBP would the Chip run different speeds.

I only mention this as you bring up that the the app used in your investigation is off topic.

 

[streetfunk]

nevermind

 

[mr_roboto]

i disagree.
i have a M4mini-base, a M4 studio-max, and have had a M4mini-pro.

i do/did run the exactly same tasks on all of them.
(Music related / realtime tasks)

So, the notable thing about this selection of computers is that the Studio chassis has much better cooling than the mini chassis, and the M4 Pro is rather a lot of power for the tiny Mac Mini enclosure.

I can easily believe that the superior cooling in the Studio and the relatively stressed cooling of the M4 Pro mini are what's behind most (if not all) of your observations.

The other thing I'd say along these lines is that Apple clearly does not ship chips with variance in paper clock speed specs. In fact, they don't actually communicate paper specs at all, but so far as anyone can tell all base M4 chips are good for 4464 MHz, no exceptions. However, thanks to manufacturing variance, some chips will be more (or less) power efficient than others, which in turn can indirectly influence how fast the chip clocks during sustained heavy loads in a thermally limited enclosure.

 

[streetfunk]

So, the notable thing about this selection of computers is that the Studio chassis has much better cooling than the mini chassis, and the M4 Pro is rather a lot of power for the tiny Mac Mini enclosure.

I agree. That´s how it is.
Nevertheless, you make it -somehow and on a quite subtle level- look like i´m an idiot.
->

I can easily believe that the superior cooling in the Studio and the relatively stressed cooling of the M4 Pro mini are what's behind most (if not all) of your observations.

absolutely. But you leave out my main point.

These macs don´t run at paper spec speed on normal uses.
They only speed up under load. Sustained load ! But what about just short spikes of much higher load ?

The point i made, and "This" IS my observation: the Studio is speeding up quicker than a M4base.
There must be internally a more agressive setting.


My statement was clear, i was talking solely vs. music making, and within that vs. realtime usages.
"There" i can see it.

but so far as anyone can tell all base M4 chips are good for 4464 MHz, no exceptions.

No, sorry.
Well wait, i can only refer to what the Geekbench 6 tests showed me.

i had different results. And as a matter of that did i repeat the benchmark 6 test many many times. and then again and again. My mini-pro was showing me very often lower CPU speeds. My mini-base sometimes.
I could not figure out why. ( all three of my M4s had the same System migrated to them. So they were internally loaded with apps the same way, same settings, etc. )


Base frequenzy for the mini is btw. 4.51 ghz.
Not sure where your number is coming from, but might already play into what i´m saying. Not sure what speed the low read out on the mini-pro was. But significantly less. Not like 4464. Way lower. More like 4.2 or 4.12. there around.
anyway...and i´m not here to fight. / i´m out now

 

[mr_roboto]

I agree. That´s how it is.
Nevertheless, you make it -somehow and on a quite subtle level- look like i´m an idiot.

That was not my intent and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

absolutely. But you leave out my main point.

These macs don´t run at paper spec speed on normal uses.
They only speed up under load. Sustained load ! But what about just short spikes of much higher load ?

The point i made, and "This" IS my observation: the Studio is speeding up quicker than a M4base.
There must be internally a more agressive setting.

This is certainly possible.

Well wait, i can only refer to what the Geekbench 6 tests showed me.

i had different results. And as a matter of that did i repeat the benchmark 6 test many many times. and then again and again. My mini-pro was showing me very often lower CPU speeds. My mini-base sometimes.
I could not figure out why. ( all three of my M4s had the same System migrated to them. So they were internally loaded with apps the same way, same settings, etc. )


Base frequenzy for the mini is btw. 4.51 ghz.
Not sure where your number is coming from, but might already play into what i´m saying. Not sure what speed the low read out on the mini-pro was. But significantly less. Not like 4464. Way lower. More like 4.2 or 4.12. there around.
anyway...and i´m not here to fight. / i´m out now

I don't trust GB6's reporting of clock speed. I think they're trying to measure it indirectly, by running benchmark code, rather than tapping into the tools macOS has to directly report clock frequency. I use one of those: I open Terminal.app and run powermetrics with a short reporting interval (usually 1000ms, use the command "sudo powermetrics -i 1000").

It is complex to interpret the output of powermetrics, but to me the most informative part of it is the active residency info. This tells you the percentage of time a CPU or cluster spent in each possible clock speed during the last powermetrics reporting interval.

One of the things that makes interpretation hard is that on M4, the macOS scheduler will not keep a single-thread load on a single CPU core. Instead, it migrates the thread around to spread the load across all cores. On a small time scale, this migration occurs over all the cores in one P cluster. If you have multiple P clusters, on a longer time scale the active P cluster gets swapped. Thus, you won't see a single CPU core sitting at max frequency for long periods of time, instead it's hopping around.

However, what you can try to look for is what speed bin a CPU is spending time in while it's active (that being "active residency"). On both my base M4 mini and M4 max MBP, under a single thread load I see CPU cores spending most of their active time in the maximum frequency bin (4464 and 4512 MHz respectively).

 

[theorist9]

Is a M4 chip of the same type have the same speed?

Wondering if you bought two MacBook pros with the same chip would they be the same? Just curious if there is any great variation in the same chip

There probably is variation in the max clock speed of which they are capable, and you would see that if Apple allowed you to overclock the chips like you can on PCs. But Apple sets fixed max clocks—which I believe are currently uniform within each tier of the M4 (base, Pro, Max)—so you don't get to see that variation. [A quick look at Geekbench suggests that, for max performance core clocks, base M4 < M4 Pro = M4 Max, but I've not checked this closely.]

Of course, the effective processing speed you see will vary, even for the same level of chip, due to other considerations, like cooling (for the same load, if the load is high enough, then cooling considerations will give you successively higher effective speeds for the 14" M4 Max MBP, 16" M4 Max MBP, and M4 Max Studio, respectively), SSD speed (which is generally size-dependent), RAM bandwidth (32-GPU-core M4 Max has less bandwidth than 40-GPU-core M4 Max), and so on.

 

[Populus]

View attachment 2571770

Gotta love AI

Hey! This one is really good! This can’t be ChatGPT…

EDIT: I could be wrong, I just tried and I’m surprised how OpenAI image generator improved!

 

[dmccloud]

These macs don´t run at paper spec speed on normal uses.
They only speed up under load. Sustained load ! But what about just short spikes of much higher load ?

The point i made, and "This" IS my observation: the Studio is speeding up quicker than a M4base.
There must be internally a more agressive setting.

That is not an equitable comparison though. The Studio only ships with an M4 Max or M3 Ultra SoC - neither of which are as power-efficient as the base M4. The Max also has a higher peak power draw, which means more headroom when performance is the top priority.

 

[gilby101]

Is a M4 chip of the same type have the same speed?

What do you mean by speed?

Perhaps the set of clock speeds at which the Efficiency and Performance cores can run. Then, Yes. There is a table of clock speeds for each Mx chip here https://eclecticlight.co/2025/10/30/updated-cpu-core-frequencies-for-all-current-apple-silicon-macs/

Perhaps the time to do a specific task (including running benchmarks). Then, No. Never mind between Macs, there will be variations on the same Mac depending on what the other 500 to 1200 processes are doing or on the surrounding temperature.

 

[Populus]

Interestingly, the M5 actually has different clock speeds depending on the device it’s used. In the iPad Pro the clock speed is around 4,40GHz and on the MacBook Pro is around 4,60GHz.

I don’t know if this was already the case on the M4 iPad Pro, but I think in that generation all the M4s were running at the same clock speed.

That being said, there are always small changes in the clock speed even on the same chip, on same device model. I’ve had several M2 iPads, and each one had a slightly different clock speed and slightly different Geekbench scores. But it all falls into the expected variation, nothing truly significant.