One of the most frequently quoted measurements in Activity Monitor is % CPU. When the fans blow, or a Mac becomes sluggish, it’s often the first figure to look at and wonder why that process is pulling over 100%. That’s the first thing you learn: here, per cent doesn’t mean out of 100, but the sum of the real percentage for each core. As this Mac has eight cores, that allows it up to 800%, until you realise that Intel processors can use Hyper-Threading to pretend that each is two cores, making a maximum of 1,600%, not bad for a single processor. Then you come completely unstuck with Apple silicon.

Apple defines % CPU as “the percentage of CPU capability that’s being used”, a phrase that doesn’t appear to have any definition either in Apple’s documentation or elsewhere. So like everyone else, you assume that 100% for a core represents its maximum processing capacity. Only you couldn’t be more incorrect: in truth, the number given as % CPU is nothing like that.

Tests

To examine this more clearly, I have an app that runs tight loops of assembly code to load CPU cores on Apple silicon chips and measure their performance. For this, I got it to run several threads, each consisting of 500 million loops of floating point calculations. By running those at different Quality of Service (QoS) settings, macOS will send them to different core types.

When I run two threads at low QoS so they’re run only on E cores of a MacBook Pro M3 Pro, each takes 10.2 seconds to complete. If I instead run eight threads at high QoS, the first six of those will be run on the P cores, but the remaining two spill over onto two of the E cores, where they complete in just 3.0 seconds each.

Yet, according to % CPU in Activity Monitor, the two threads on the E cores come to 200%, and the two from eight run in the second test also come to 200%. You can see this in the CPU History window.

Here are the 6 E cores at the top, and 6 P cores below. ① marks the first test on two E cores, and shows the total of 200% spread across all six E cores over the 10.2 seconds it took to complete. ② marks the second test, with all 6 P cores and two E cores hitting 100% each, for a total of 800%, as shown in Activity Monitor’s window.

By now I’m sure you guessing how running the same code on the E cores could vary in speed by a factor of 3.4 (10.2 against 3.0 seconds) although they’re the same % CPU: that measurement doesn’t take into account core frequency.

Frequency

Unlike traditional Intel CPUs, CPU cores in Apple silicon chips can be run at a wide range of frequencies, as set by macOS. To make this frequency control a bit simpler, cores are grouped into clusters, that also share L2 cache, and within each cluster all cores run at the same frequency. The M3 Pro chip consists of two clusters, one of 6 E cores, the other of 6 P cores.

When macOS loads two of those E cores with low QoS threads, it sets them to run at a low frequency to make the most of their energy efficiency. When it loads two E cores with threads that were intended to be run on P cores, as they have a high QoS, it runs the E cluster up to high frequency, so they perform better.

Measuring frequency of CPU cores is straightforward using the powermetrics command tool. When those threads were being run on E cores at low QoS, frequency was held at their minimum of 744 MHz, but run at high QoS their frequency was set to maximum, at 2748 MHz, 3.7 times faster. If full load at maximum frequency is 100% of their capability, then at low QoS they were really running at 27%, not the 100% given by Activity Monitor, and that largely accounts for the difference in time that those threads took to complete their floating point calculations.

What is % CPU?

What Activity Monitor actually shows as % CPU or “percentage of CPU capability that’s being used” is what’s better known as active residency of each core, that’s the percentage of processor cycles that aren’t idle, but actively processing threads owned by a given process. But it doesn’t take into account the frequency or clock speed of the core at that time, nor the difference in core throughput between P and E cores.

The next time that you open Activity Monitor on an Apple silicon Mac, to look at % CPU figures, bear in mind that while those numbers aren’t completely meaningless, they don’t mean what you might think, and what’s shown as 100% could be anything between 27-100%.

In the light of recent news, you might now be wondering whether you can afford to wait until next year in the hope that Apple then releases the M4 Mac of your dreams. To help guide you in your decision-making, this article explains what chip options are available in this month’s new M4 models, and how to choose between them.

CPU core types

Intel CPUs in modern Macs have several cores, all of them identical. Whether your Mac is running a background task like indexing for Spotlight, or running code for a time-critical user task, code is run across any of the available cores. In an Apple silicon chip like those in the M4 family, background tasks are normally constrained to efficiency (E) cores, leaving the performance (P) cores for your apps and other pressing user tasks. This brings significant energy economy for background tasks, and keeps your Mac more responsive to your demands.

Some tasks are normally constrained to run only on E cores. These include scheduled background tasks like Spotlight indexing, Time Machine backups, and some encoding of media. Game Mode is perhaps a more surprising E core user, as explained below.

Most user tasks are run preferentially on P cores, when they’re available. When there are more high-priority threads to be run than there are available P cores, then macOS will normally send them to be run on E cores instead. This also applies to threads running a Virtual Machine (VM) using lightweight virtualisation, whose threads will be preferentially scheduled on P cores when they’re available, even when code being run in the VM would normally be allocated to E cores.

macOS also controls the clock speed or frequency of cores. For background tasks running on E cores, their frequency is normally held relatively low, for best energy efficiency. When high-priority threads overspill onto E cores, they’re normally run at higher frequency, which is less energy-efficient but brings their performance closer to that of a P core. macOS goes to great lengths to schedule threads and control core frequencies to strike the best balance between energy efficiency and performance.

Unfortunately, it’s normally hard to see effects of frequency in apps like Activity Monitor. Its CPU % figures only show the percentage of cycles that are used for processing, and make no allowance for core frequency. It will therefore show a background thread running at low frequency but 100%, the same as a thread overspilt from P cores running at the maximum frequency of that E core. So when you see Spotlight indexing apparently taking 200% of CPU % on your Mac’s E cores, that might only be a small fraction of their maximum capacity if they were running at maximum frequency.

There are no differences between chips in the M4 family when it comes to each type of CPU core: each P core in a Base variant is the same as each in an M4 Pro or Max, with the same maximum frequency, and the same applies to E cores. macOS also allocates threads to different types of core using the same rules, and their frequencies are controlled the same as well. What differs between them is the number of each type of core, ranging from 4 P and 4 E in the 8-core variant of the Base M4, up to 12 P and 4 E in the 16-core variant of the M4 Max. Thus, their single-core benchmark results should be almost identical, although their multi-core results should vary according to the number of cores.

Game Mode

This mode is an exception to normal CPU and GPU core use, as it:

• gives preferential access to the E cores,
• gives highest priority access to the GPU,
• uses low-latency Bluetooth modes for input controllers and audio output.

However, my previous testing didn’t demonstrate that apps running in Game Mode were given exclusive access to E cores. But for gamers, it now appears that the more E cores, the better.

GPU cores

These are also used for tasks other than graphics, such as some of the more demanding calculations required for Machine Learning and AI. However, experience so far with Writing Tools in Sequoia 15.1 is that macOS currently offloads their heavy lifting to be run off-device in one of Apple’s dedicated servers. Although having plenty of GPU cores might well be valuable for non-graphics purposes in the future, for now there seems little advantage for many.

Thunderbolt 5

M4 Pro and Max, but not Base variants, come equipped with Thunderbolt ports that not only support Thunderbolt 3 and 4, but 5, as well as USB4. Thunderbolt 5 should effectively double the speed of connected TB5 SSDs, but to see that benefit, you’ll need to buy a TB5 SSD. Not only are they more expensive than TB3/4 models, but at present I know of only one range that’s due to ship this year. There will also be other peripherals with TB5 support, including at least one dock and one hub, although neither is available yet. The only TB5 accessories that are already available are cables, and even they are expensive.

TB5 also brings increased video bandwidth and support for DisplayPort 2.1, although even the M4 Max can’t make full use of that. If you’re looking to drive a combination of high-res displays, consult Apple’s Tech Specs carefully, as they’re complicated.

Although TB5 will become increasingly important over the next few years, TB3/4 and USB4 are far from dead yet and are supported by all M4 models.

Which M4 chip?

The table below summarises key figures for each of the variants in the M4 family that have now been released. It’s likely that next year Apple will release an Ultra, consisting of two M4 Max chips joined in tandem, in case you feel the burning desire for 24 P and 8 E cores.

Models available next week featuring each M4 chip are shown with green rectangles at the right.

There are two variants of the Base M4, one with 4P + 4E and 8 GPU cores, the same as Base variants in M1 to M3 families. There’s also the more capable variant, for the first time with 4P + 6E, which promises to be a better all-rounder, and when in Game Mode. It also has an extra couple of GPU cores.

The M4 Pro also comes in two variants, this time differing in the number of P cores, 8 or 10, and GPU cores, 16 or 20. Those overlap with the M4 Max, with 10 or 12 P cores and 32 or 40 GPU cores. Thus the gap between M4 Pro and Max isn’t as great as in the M3, with the GPUs in the M4 Max being aimed more at those working with high-res video, for instance. For more general use, there’s little difference between the 14-core Pro and Max.

Memory and storage

Chips in the M4 family also determine the maximum memory and internal SSD capacity. Apple has at last eliminated base models with only 8 GB of memory, and all now start with at least 16 GB. Base M4 chips are limited to a maximum of 32 GB, while the M4 Pro can go up to 64 GB, and the 16-core Max up to 128 GB, although in its 14-core variant, the Max is only available with 36 GB (I’m very grateful to Thomas for pointing this out below).

Unfortunately, Apple hasn’t increased the minimum size of internal SSD, which remains at 256 GB for some base models. Smaller SSDs may be cheaper, but they are also likely to have shorter lives, as under heavy use their small number of blocks will be erased for reuse more frequently. That may shorten their life expectancy to much less than the normal period of up to 10 years, as was seen in some of the first M1 models. This is more likely to occur when swap space is regularly used for virtual memory. I for one would have preferred 512 GB as a starting point.

While Base M4 chips come with SSDs up to 2 TB in size, both Pro and Max can be supplied with internal SSDs of up to 8 TB.

I hope this proves useful in guiding your decision.

Almost exactly a year after it released its first Macs featuring chips in the M3 family, Apple has replaced those with the first M4 models. Benchmarkers and core-counters are now busy trying to understand how these will change our Macs over the coming year or so. Before I reveal which model I have ordered, I’ll try to explain how these change the Mac landscape, concentrating primarily on CPU performance.

CPU cores

CPUs in the first two families, M1 and M2, came in two main designs, a Base variant with 4 Performance and 4 Efficiency cores, and a Pro/Max with 8 P and 2 or 4 E cores, that was doubled-up to make the Ultra something of a beast with its 16 P and 4 or 8 E cores. Last year Apple introduced three designs: the M3 Base has the same 4 P and 4 E CPU core configuration as in the M1 and M2 before it, but its Pro and Max variants are more distinct, with 6 P and 6 E in the Pro, and 10-12 P and 4 E cores in the Max. The M4 family changes this again, improving the Base and bringing the Pro and Max variants closer again.

As these are complicated by sub-variants and binned versions, I have brought the details together in a table.

I have set the core frequencies of the M4 in italics, as I have yet to confirm them, and there’s some confusion whether the maximum frequency of the P core is 4.3 or 4.4 GHz.

Each family of CPU cores has successively improved in-core performance, but the greatest changes are the result of increasing maximum core frequencies and core numbers. One crude but practical way to compare them is to total the maximum core frequencies in GHz for all the cores. Strictly speaking, this should take into account differences in processing units between P and E cores, but that also appears to have changed with each family, and is hard to compare. In the table, columns giving Σfn are therefore simply calculated as
(max P core frequency x P core count) + (max E core frequency x E core count)

Plotting those sum core frequencies by variant for each of the four families provides some interesting insights.

Here, each bar represents the sum core frequency of each full-spec variant. Those are grouped by the variant type (Base, Pro, Max, Ultra), and within those in family order (M1 purple, M2 pale blue, M3 dark blue, M4 red). Many trends are obvious, from the relatively low performance expected of the M1 family, except the Ultra, and the changes between families, for example the marked differences in the M4 Pro, and the M3 Max, against their immediate predecessors.

Sum core frequencies fall into three classes: 20-30, 35-45, and greater than 55 GHz. Three of the four chips in the M1 family are in the lowest of those, with only the M1 Ultra reaching the highest. The M4 is the first Base variant to reach the middle class, thanks in part to its additional two E cores. Two of the M4 variants (Pro and Max) have already reached the highest class, and any M4 Ultra would reach far above the top of the chart at 128 GHz.

Real-world performance will inevitably differ, and vary according to benchmark and app used for comparison. Although single-core performance has improved steadily, apps that only run in a single thread and can’t take advantage of multiple cores are likely to show little if any difference between variants in each family.

Game Mode is also of interest for those considering the two versions of the M4 Base, with 4 or 6 E cores. This is because that mode dedicates the E cores, together with the GPU, to the game being played. It’s likely that games that are more CPU-bound will perform significantly better on the six E cores of the 10-Core version of the iMac, which also comes with a 10-core GPU and four Thunderbolt 4 ports.

Memory and GPU

Memory bandwidth is also important, although for most apps we should assume that Apple’s engineers match that with likely demand from CPU, GPU, neural engine, and other parts of the chip. There will always be some threads that are more memory-bound, whose performance will be more dependant on memory bandwidth than CPU or GPU cores.

Although Apple claims successive improvements in GPU performance, the range in GPU cores has started at 8 and attained 32-40 in Max chips. Where the Max variants come into their own is support for multiple high-res displays, and challenging video editing and processing.

Thunderbolt and USB 3

The other big difference in these Macs is support for the new Thunderbolt 5 standard, available only in models with M4 Pro or M4 Max chips; Base variants still only support Thunderbolt 4. Although there are currently almost no Thunderbolt 5 peripherals available apart from an abundant supply of expensive cables, by the end of this year there should be at least one range of SSDs and one dock shipping.

As ever with claimed Thunderbolt performance, figures given don’t tell the whole story. Although both TB4 and USB4 claim ‘up to’ 40 Gb/s transfer rates, in practice external SSD performance is significantly different, with Thunderbolt topping out at about 3 GB/s and USB4 reaching up to 3.4 GB/s. In practice, TB5 won’t deliver the whole of its claimed maximum of 120 Gb/s to a single storage device, and current reports are that will only achieve disk transfers at 6 GB/s, or twice TB4. However, in use that’s close to the expected performance of internal SSDs in Apple silicon Macs, and should make booting from a TB5 external SSD almost indistinguishable in terms of speed.

As far as external ports go, this widens the gap between the M4 Pro Mac mini’s three TB5 ports, which should now deliver 3.4 GB/s over USB4 or 6 GB/s over TB5, and its two USB-C ports that are still restricted to USB 3.2 Gen 2 at 10 Gb/s, equating to 1 GB/s, the same as in M1 models from four years ago.

My choice

With a couple of T2 Macs and a MacBook Pro M3 Pro, I’ve been looking to replace my original Mac Studio M1 Max. As it looks likely that an M4 version of the Studio won’t be announced until well into next year, I’m taking the opportunity to shrink its already modest size to that of a new Mac mini. What better choice than an M4 Pro with 10 P and 4 E cores and a 20-core GPU, and the optional 10 Gb Ethernet? I seldom use the fourth Thunderbolt port on the Studio, and have already ordered a Kensington dock to deliver three TB5 ports from one on the Mac, and I’m sure it will drive my Studio Display every bit as well as the Studio has done.

If you have also been tempted by one of the new Mac minis, I was astonished to discover that three-year AppleCare+ for it costs less than £100, that’s two-thirds of the price that I pay each year for AppleCare+ on my MacBook Pro.

I look forward to diving deep into both my new Mac and Thunderbolt 5 in the coming weeks.