HiSilicon Kirin 810 vs HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G
The HiSilicon Kirin 810 and the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G are two processors designed by HiSilicon, a subsidiary of Huawei. While both processors offer impressive specifications, there are some notable differences between them.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 810 features two Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.27 GHz and six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 1.88 GHz. On the other hand, the Kirin 9000E 5G boasts a more powerful configuration with one Cortex-A77 core clocked at 3.13 GHz, three Cortex-A77 cores clocked at 2.54 GHz, and four Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 2.05 GHz. This suggests that the Kirin 9000E 5G offers better performance and multitasking capabilities compared to the Kirin 810.
Both processors have eight cores and support the ARMv8.2-A instruction set. However, the Kirin 9000E 5G is manufactured using a more advanced 5 nm lithography process, while the Kirin 810 utilizes a 7 nm lithography process. A smaller lithography process generally allows for better power efficiency and performance.
In terms of transistor count, the Kirin 9000E 5G has 15,300 million transistors, which is more than twice the number found in the Kirin 810, which has 6,900 million transistors. This indicates that the Kirin 9000E 5G is a more advanced and sophisticated processor.
In the field of neural processing, both processors utilize HiSilicon's AI technology. The Kirin 810 incorporates the Ascend D100 Lite neural processing unit (NPU), while the Kirin 9000E 5G employs the Ascend Lite and Ascend Tiny NPUs. The Kirin 9000E 5G's neural processing capabilities are likely to be superior, allowing for more efficient and powerful AI functionalities.
Lastly, in terms of thermal design power (TDP), the Kirin 810 has a TDP of 5 watts, while the Kirin 9000E 5G has a slightly higher TDP of 6 watts. This suggests that the Kirin 9000E 5G may generate more heat, but also provide better performance.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G surpasses the Kirin 810 in terms of processing power, lithography process, transistor count, and neural processing capabilities. However, it's important to note that these processors are designed for different purposes and target different market segments.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 810 features two Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.27 GHz and six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 1.88 GHz. On the other hand, the Kirin 9000E 5G boasts a more powerful configuration with one Cortex-A77 core clocked at 3.13 GHz, three Cortex-A77 cores clocked at 2.54 GHz, and four Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 2.05 GHz. This suggests that the Kirin 9000E 5G offers better performance and multitasking capabilities compared to the Kirin 810.
Both processors have eight cores and support the ARMv8.2-A instruction set. However, the Kirin 9000E 5G is manufactured using a more advanced 5 nm lithography process, while the Kirin 810 utilizes a 7 nm lithography process. A smaller lithography process generally allows for better power efficiency and performance.
In terms of transistor count, the Kirin 9000E 5G has 15,300 million transistors, which is more than twice the number found in the Kirin 810, which has 6,900 million transistors. This indicates that the Kirin 9000E 5G is a more advanced and sophisticated processor.
In the field of neural processing, both processors utilize HiSilicon's AI technology. The Kirin 810 incorporates the Ascend D100 Lite neural processing unit (NPU), while the Kirin 9000E 5G employs the Ascend Lite and Ascend Tiny NPUs. The Kirin 9000E 5G's neural processing capabilities are likely to be superior, allowing for more efficient and powerful AI functionalities.
Lastly, in terms of thermal design power (TDP), the Kirin 810 has a TDP of 5 watts, while the Kirin 9000E 5G has a slightly higher TDP of 6 watts. This suggests that the Kirin 9000E 5G may generate more heat, but also provide better performance.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G surpasses the Kirin 810 in terms of processing power, lithography process, transistor count, and neural processing capabilities. However, it's important to note that these processors are designed for different purposes and target different market segments.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 2x 2.27 GHz – Cortex-A76 6x 1.88 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
1x 3.13 GHz – Cortex-A77 3x 2.54 GHz – Cortex-A77 4x 2.05 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
Number of transistors | 6900 million | 15300 million |
TDP | 5 Watt | 6 Watt |
Neural Processing | Ascend D100 Lite, HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture | Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny, HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0 |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 16 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR5 |
Memory frequency | 2133 MHz | 2750 MHz |
Memory-bus | 4x16 bit | 4x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.1 | UFS 3.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G52 MP6 | Mali-G78 MP22 |
GPU Architecture | Mali Bifrost | Mali Valhall |
GPU frequency | 820 MHz | 760 MHz |
Execution units | 6 | 22 |
Shaders | 96 | 352 |
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
OpenCL API | 2.0 | 2.1 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | ES 3.2 |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 3840x2160 | |
Max camera resolution | 1x 48MP, 2x 20MP | |
Max Video Capture | FullHD@30fps | 4K@60fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 0.6 Gbps | 4.6 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.15 Gbps | 2.5 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 6 (802.11ax) | 6 (802.11ax) |
Bluetooth | 5.1 | 5.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS NavIC |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2019 Quarter 2 | 2020 October |
Partnumber | Hi6280 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Flagship |
Popular comparisons:
1
Samsung Exynos 850 vs HiSilicon Kirin 710A
2
Samsung Exynos 7884B vs MediaTek Helio G37
3
MediaTek MT6737 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 685
4
Samsung Exynos 9810 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 801
5
Apple A18 vs MediaTek Dimensity 7030
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G vs Apple A13 Bionic
7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G vs MediaTek Dimensity 7200
8
MediaTek MT6739 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9400
9
Samsung Exynos 980 vs Apple M3 (iPad)
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus vs MediaTek Dimensity 9400 Plus