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 | Mali Bifrost | Mali Midgard |
GPU frequency | 1000 MHz | 680 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
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9400e
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 vs HiSilicon Kirin 8000
3
MediaTek Helio G85 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 821
4
MediaTek Dimensity 800U vs Google Tensor G5
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8400
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite (Gen 4) vs MediaTek Helio G90T
7
MediaTek Dimensity 6400 vs Samsung Exynos 850
8
Unisoc Tanggula T770 5G vs MediaTek Dimensity 9300
9
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G vs HiSilicon Kirin 820 5G
10
Samsung Exynos 2400 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 690