HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G vs Unisoc Tiger T310
Compared to the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G, the Unisoc Tiger T310 is a less powerful processor in terms of specifications.
The Kirin 9000E 5G boasts a more advanced architecture with its 1x 3.13 GHz Cortex-A77, 3x 2.54 GHz Cortex-A77, and 4x 2.05 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. In comparison, the Tiger T310 is equipped with a 1x 2 GHz Cortex-A75 and 3x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores, which are not as fast or efficient.
In terms of the number of cores, the Kirin 9000E 5G takes the lead with 8 cores, while the Tiger T310 has only 4 cores. More cores generally allow for better multitasking and performance.
Both processors utilize the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern applications.
The Kirin 9000E 5G is manufactured using a more advanced 5 nm lithography technology, resulting in better power efficiency and thermal performance. On the other hand, the Tiger T310 is manufactured using a 12 nm lithography, which may result in higher power consumption and less efficient operation.
In terms of the number of transistors, the Kirin 9000E stands at 15300 million, indicating a denser and more capable chip design. However, the exact number of transistors for the Tiger T310 is not specified, so a direct comparison cannot be made.
The TDP (Thermal Design Power) of the Kirin 9000E 5G is 6 Watts, indicating a relatively low power consumption. Unfortunately, the TDP for the Tiger T310 is not provided.
In terms of neural processing capabilities, the Kirin 9000E 5G utilizes Ascend Lite and Ascend Tiny neural processing units, along with the HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0. The Tiger T310 does not specify any neural processing capabilities.
Overall, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G outshines the Unisoc Tiger T310 in terms of specifications, offering better performance, efficiency, and advanced features.
The Kirin 9000E 5G boasts a more advanced architecture with its 1x 3.13 GHz Cortex-A77, 3x 2.54 GHz Cortex-A77, and 4x 2.05 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. In comparison, the Tiger T310 is equipped with a 1x 2 GHz Cortex-A75 and 3x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores, which are not as fast or efficient.
In terms of the number of cores, the Kirin 9000E 5G takes the lead with 8 cores, while the Tiger T310 has only 4 cores. More cores generally allow for better multitasking and performance.
Both processors utilize the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern applications.
The Kirin 9000E 5G is manufactured using a more advanced 5 nm lithography technology, resulting in better power efficiency and thermal performance. On the other hand, the Tiger T310 is manufactured using a 12 nm lithography, which may result in higher power consumption and less efficient operation.
In terms of the number of transistors, the Kirin 9000E stands at 15300 million, indicating a denser and more capable chip design. However, the exact number of transistors for the Tiger T310 is not specified, so a direct comparison cannot be made.
The TDP (Thermal Design Power) of the Kirin 9000E 5G is 6 Watts, indicating a relatively low power consumption. Unfortunately, the TDP for the Tiger T310 is not provided.
In terms of neural processing capabilities, the Kirin 9000E 5G utilizes Ascend Lite and Ascend Tiny neural processing units, along with the HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0. The Tiger T310 does not specify any neural processing capabilities.
Overall, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G outshines the Unisoc Tiger T310 in terms of specifications, offering better performance, efficiency, and advanced features.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 1x 3.13 GHz – Cortex-A77 3x 2.54 GHz – Cortex-A77 4x 2.05 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
1x 2 GHz – Cortex-A75 3x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 5 nm | 12 nm |
Number of transistors | 15300 million | |
TDP | 6 Watt | |
Neural Processing | Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny, HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0 |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 16 GB | up to 4 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR5 | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 2750 MHz | 1333 MHz |
Memory-bus | 4x16 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 3.1 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G78 MP22 | Imagination PowerVR GE8300 |
GPU Architecture | Valhall | Rogue |
GPU frequency | 760 MHz | 660 MHz |
Execution units | 22 | 2 |
Shaders | 352 | 32 |
DirectX | 12 | 10 |
OpenCL API | 2.1 | 3.0 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | ES 3.2 |
Vulkan API | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 3840x2160 | 1600x720 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 16MP + 1x 8MP | |
Max Video Capture | 4K@60fps | FullHD@30fps |
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 | 4.6 Gbps | 0.3 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 2.5 Gbps | 0.1 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 6 (802.11ax) | 5 (802.11ac) |
Bluetooth | 5.2 | 5.0 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS NavIC |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2020 October | 2019 April |
Partnumber | T310 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Flagship | Low-end |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Apple A16 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 712
2
MediaTek Helio P65 vs HiSilicon Kirin 970
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 vs MediaTek Helio G36
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 vs Samsung Exynos 9611
5
HiSilicon Kirin 930 vs Samsung Exynos 1330
6
MediaTek Helio G35 vs Samsung Exynos 7884B
7
HiSilicon Kirin 820 5G vs Samsung Exynos 9825
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 vs Unisoc Tiger T606
9
Unisoc Tiger T616 vs MediaTek Helio P90
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 695