HiSilicon Kirin 710 vs Unisoc SC9832E
The HiSilicon Kirin 710 and Unisoc SC9832E are both processors commonly used in mobile devices, but they have different specifications that warrant comparison.
First, looking at CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 has a more advanced architecture with 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.7 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This makes it a total of eight cores that can handle various tasks efficiently. In contrast, the Unisoc SC9832E has a simpler architecture with only four 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This means the HiSilicon Kirin 710 is better equipped to handle intensive processes and multitasking.
In terms of lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 uses a more advanced 12 nm process, while the Unisoc SC9832E uses a slightly older 28 nm process. The smaller the process, the more transistors can fit onto the same space, resulting in better power efficiency and performance for the HiSilicon Kirin 710.
Speaking of transistors, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 boasts 5500 million transistors, which suggests a higher level of integration and processing power. In comparison, the Unisoc SC9832E's transistor count is not specified, but it can be assumed to be lower than that of the HiSilicon Kirin 710.
When it comes to power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 has a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 5 Watts, indicating better power efficiency. On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E has a slightly higher TDP of 7 Watts.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 outperforms the Unisoc SC9832E in several key areas. Its architecture uses a mix of more powerful cores, it has a more advanced lithography process and more transistors, and it boasts a lower TDP. This means the HiSilicon Kirin 710 is likely to offer better performance and power efficiency compared to the Unisoc SC9832E. However, it is essential to consider other factors such as the specific device and its optimization before drawing a final conclusion on overall performance.
First, looking at CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 has a more advanced architecture with 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.7 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This makes it a total of eight cores that can handle various tasks efficiently. In contrast, the Unisoc SC9832E has a simpler architecture with only four 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This means the HiSilicon Kirin 710 is better equipped to handle intensive processes and multitasking.
In terms of lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 uses a more advanced 12 nm process, while the Unisoc SC9832E uses a slightly older 28 nm process. The smaller the process, the more transistors can fit onto the same space, resulting in better power efficiency and performance for the HiSilicon Kirin 710.
Speaking of transistors, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 boasts 5500 million transistors, which suggests a higher level of integration and processing power. In comparison, the Unisoc SC9832E's transistor count is not specified, but it can be assumed to be lower than that of the HiSilicon Kirin 710.
When it comes to power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 has a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 5 Watts, indicating better power efficiency. On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E has a slightly higher TDP of 7 Watts.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 710 outperforms the Unisoc SC9832E in several key areas. Its architecture uses a mix of more powerful cores, it has a more advanced lithography process and more transistors, and it boasts a lower TDP. This means the HiSilicon Kirin 710 is likely to offer better performance and power efficiency compared to the Unisoc SC9832E. However, it is essential to consider other factors such as the specific device and its optimization before drawing a final conclusion on overall performance.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A73 4x 1.7 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 1.4 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8-A |
Lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Number of transistors | 5500 million | |
TDP | 5 Watt | 7 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 6 GB | up to 2 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4 | LPDDR3 |
Memory frequency | 1866 MHz | 667 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.1 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G51 MP4 | Mali-T820 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Bifrost | Midgard |
GPU frequency | 650 MHz | 680 MHz |
GPU boost frequency | 1000 MHz | |
Execution units | 4 | 1 |
Shaders | 64 | 4 |
DirectX | 12 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 2.0 | 1.2 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2340x1080 | 1440x720 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 40MP, 2x 24MP | 1x 13MP |
Max Video Capture | FullHD@30fps | |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 0.6 Gbps | 0.15 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.15 Gbps | 0.05 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 4 (802.11n) | 4 (802.11n) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 4.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2018 Quarter 3 | 2018 |
Partnumber | Hi6260 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Low-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
Google Tensor G2 vs MediaTek Helio P60
2
MediaTek Helio G80 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 782G
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 835
4
Apple A11 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 480
5
Unisoc Tiger T700 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 685
6
Samsung Exynos 7870 vs Unisoc Tiger T618
7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G
8
HiSilicon Kirin 930 vs Apple A10X Fusion
9
MediaTek Dimensity 8200 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G
10
Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765