HiSilicon Kirin 710F vs HiSilicon Kirin 935
The HiSilicon Kirin 710F and the HiSilicon Kirin 935 are two processors with different specifications. Let's compare them based on their specifications.
First, let's look at the CPU cores and architecture. The Kirin 710F has an architecture of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A73 and 4x 1.7 GHz Cortex-A53. On the other hand, the Kirin 935 has an architecture of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53. In terms of cores, both processors have 8 cores. In terms of the instruction set, both processors share the same ARMv8-A instruction set.
Moving on to the lithography, the Kirin 710F has a lithography of 12 nm while the Kirin 935 has a lithography of 28 nm. A smaller lithography generally indicates better power efficiency and improved performance.
When it comes to the number of transistors, the Kirin 710F has 5500 million transistors, whereas the Kirin 935 has 1000 million transistors. The higher number of transistors can indicate better performance and efficiency in the processor.
Lastly, let's consider the thermal design power (TDP). The TDP of the Kirin 710F is 5 watts, while the Kirin 935 has a TDP of 7 watts. A lower TDP usually indicates better power efficiency, as it means the processor consumes less power and generates less heat.
In conclusion, both processors have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Kirin 710F has a smaller lithography, higher number of transistors, and lower TDP, which might imply better power efficiency and improved performance. However, the Kirin 935 still holds its ground with its decent architecture and similar number of cores. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on the specific requirements of the device and the intended usage.
First, let's look at the CPU cores and architecture. The Kirin 710F has an architecture of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A73 and 4x 1.7 GHz Cortex-A53. On the other hand, the Kirin 935 has an architecture of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53. In terms of cores, both processors have 8 cores. In terms of the instruction set, both processors share the same ARMv8-A instruction set.
Moving on to the lithography, the Kirin 710F has a lithography of 12 nm while the Kirin 935 has a lithography of 28 nm. A smaller lithography generally indicates better power efficiency and improved performance.
When it comes to the number of transistors, the Kirin 710F has 5500 million transistors, whereas the Kirin 935 has 1000 million transistors. The higher number of transistors can indicate better performance and efficiency in the processor.
Lastly, let's consider the thermal design power (TDP). The TDP of the Kirin 710F is 5 watts, while the Kirin 935 has a TDP of 7 watts. A lower TDP usually indicates better power efficiency, as it means the processor consumes less power and generates less heat.
In conclusion, both processors have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Kirin 710F has a smaller lithography, higher number of transistors, and lower TDP, which might imply better power efficiency and improved performance. However, the Kirin 935 still holds its ground with its decent architecture and similar number of cores. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on the specific requirements of the device and the intended usage.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A73 4x 1.7 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8-A |
Lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Number of transistors | 5500 million | 1000 million |
TDP | 5 Watt | 7 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 6 GB | up to 8 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4 | LPDDR3 |
Memory frequency | 1866 MHz | 800 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.0 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G51 MP4 | Mali-T628 MP4 |
GPU Architecture | Bifrost | Midgard |
GPU frequency | 650 MHz | 680 MHz |
GPU boost frequency | 1000 MHz | |
Execution units | 4 | 4 |
Shaders | 64 | 64 |
DirectX | 12 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 2.0 | 1.2 |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2340x1080 | 2560x1600 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 48MP, 2x 24MP | 1x 20MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 0.6 Gbps | 0.3 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.15 Gbps | 0.05 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 4 (802.11n) | 5 (802.11ac) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 4.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2019 Quarter 1 | 2015 Quarter 2 |
Partnumber | Hi6260 | Hi3635 |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Mid-end |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
2
MediaTek Helio G37 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 821
3
Unisoc Tiger T700 vs Unisoc Tiger T618
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632 vs HiSilicon Kirin 970
5
HiSilicon Kirin 980 vs Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G
6
MediaTek Dimensity 6080 vs Unisoc SC7731E
7
HiSilicon Kirin 710A vs Unisoc Tiger T606
8
Apple A14 Bionic vs HiSilicon Kirin 710
9
HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 695
10
HiSilicon Kirin 990 4G vs Samsung Exynos 2100