PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

M1 Max

2021

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (48 MB vs 32 MB).
✅Draws 28W instead of 180W, a 152W reduction.
✅Newer platform on none with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with M1 Max GPU, while Ryzen Threadripper 1950 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1950 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (22,077 vs 22,146).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 48 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while M1 Max mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌542.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 28W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while M1 Max moves to none and DDR5.

M1 Max

2021

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (48 MB vs 32 MB).
✅Draws 28W instead of 180W, a 152W reduction.
✅Newer platform on none with DDR5 support instead of SP3r2 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with M1 Max GPU, while Ryzen Threadripper 1950 needs a discrete GPU.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1950 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Ryzen Threadripper 1950, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (22,077 vs 22,146).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 48 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while M1 Max mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌542.9% higher power demand at 180W vs 28W.
❌Older platform position on SP3r2 with DDR4, while M1 Max moves to none and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is M1 Max better than Ryzen Threadripper 1950?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. Ryzen Threadripper 1950 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while M1 Max is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, M1 Max is the better fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 10 cores and 10 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (48 MB vs 32 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

M1 Max is still the faster CPU overall, but Ryzen Threadripper 1950 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. M1 Max is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $999 MSRP, and it gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The trade-off is that Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 4.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (22.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

M1 Max is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2021 vs 2017), a healthier platform with none and DDR5 instead of SP3r2, 50% larger total L3 cache (48 MB vs 32 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 10 cores / 10 threads instead of 16/32. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

M1 Max Benchmark Check

Ryzen Threadripper 1950 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	M1 Max	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	183 FPS	173 FPS
medium	146 FPS	153 FPS
high	117 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	93 FPS	99 FPS
1440p
low	152 FPS	139 FPS
medium	118 FPS	117 FPS
high	91 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	73 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	65 FPS
medium	59 FPS	59 FPS
high	46 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	37 FPS	36 FPS

Open M1 Max Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	M1 Max	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	236 FPS	336 FPS
medium	211 FPS	304 FPS
high	172 FPS	261 FPS
ultra	137 FPS	210 FPS
1440p
low	200 FPS	287 FPS
medium	182 FPS	264 FPS
high	153 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	182 FPS
4K
low	122 FPS	184 FPS
medium	113 FPS	169 FPS
high	99 FPS	147 FPS
ultra	81 FPS	115 FPS

Open M1 Max Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	M1 Max	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	554 FPS	552 FPS
medium	554 FPS	505 FPS
high	554 FPS	458 FPS
ultra	510 FPS	407 FPS
1440p
low	554 FPS	531 FPS
medium	473 FPS	439 FPS
high	415 FPS	385 FPS
ultra	364 FPS	341 FPS
4K
low	417 FPS	401 FPS
medium	323 FPS	318 FPS
high	274 FPS	281 FPS
ultra	221 FPS	234 FPS

Open M1 Max Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	M1 Max	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
1080p
low	554 FPS	552 FPS
medium	554 FPS	552 FPS
high	554 FPS	552 FPS
ultra	554 FPS	487 FPS
1440p
low	554 FPS	552 FPS
medium	554 FPS	535 FPS
high	532 FPS	462 FPS
ultra	453 FPS	391 FPS
4K
low	509 FPS	416 FPS
medium	451 FPS	382 FPS
high	394 FPS	343 FPS
ultra	341 FPS	295 FPS

Open M1 Max Open Ryzen Threadripper 1950

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of M1 Max and Ryzen Threadripper 1950

M1 Max

The M1 Max is manufactured by Apple. It was released in 18 October 2021 (4 years ago). It features 10 cores and 10 threads. Base frequency is 2.06 GHz, with boost up to 3.22 GHz. L3 cache: 48 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: none. Thermal design power (TDP): 28 MB + 48 MB. Memory support: LPDDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 22,146 points. Launch price was $299.

Ryzen Threadripper 1950

The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,077 points. Launch price was $299.

⚡

Processing Power

The M1 Max packs 10 cores / 10 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has 6 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.22 GHz on the M1 Max versus 3.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — a 0.6% clock advantage for the M1 Max (base: 2.06 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is built on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. In PassMark, the M1 Max scores 22,146 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950's 22,077 — a 0.3% lead for the M1 Max. L3 cache: 48 MB on the M1 Max vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950.

Feature	M1 Max	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Cores / Threads	10 / 10	16 / 32+60%
Boost Clock	3.22 GHz	3.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.06 GHz	3.2 GHz+55%
L3 Cache	48 MB+50%	32 MB
L2 Cache	28 MB+5500%	512 kB (per core)
Process	5 nm-64%	14 nm
Architecture	—	Zen (2017−2020)
PassMark	22,146	22,077
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	18,780
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,961
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	10,100

🧠

Memory & Platform

The M1 Max uses the none socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR5-6400 on the M1 Max versus DDR4-2666 on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — the M1 Max supports 22.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (M1 Max) vs 4 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). PCIe lanes: 0 (M1 Max) vs 64 (Ryzen Threadripper 1950) — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 64 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	M1 Max	Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Socket	none	SP3r2
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR5-6400+25%	DDR4-2666
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	128 GB+100%
RAM Channels	8+100%	4
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	64

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Virtualization support: ARM-V (M1 Max) vs AMD-V (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). The M1 Max includes integrated graphics (M1 Max GPU), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: M1 Max targets Mobile Workstation, Ryzen Threadripper 1950 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Ryzen Threadripper 1950 rivals Core i9-7960X.