HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G vs Unisoc Tiger T618
The HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G and the Unisoc Tiger T618 are two processors with different specifications.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G features a more diverse setup. It consists of 1x 3.13 GHz Cortex-A77 core, 3x 2.54 GHz Cortex-A77 cores, and 4x 2.05 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T618 has 2x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 6x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. The HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G boasts higher clock speeds and a greater variety of cores, potentially providing superior performance in multitasking and heavier workloads.
Both processors support the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern software and applications. However, when it comes to lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G has the advantage with its 5 nm process, which allows for greater power efficiency and potentially better overall performance compared to the 12 nm lithography of the Unisoc Tiger T618.
In terms of power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G has a lower TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 6 Watts compared to the 10 Watt TDP of the Unisoc Tiger T618. This suggests that the HiSilicon processor may have better power management and generate less heat during operation.
When it comes to neural processing capabilities, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G utilizes the Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny and HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0, while the Unisoc Tiger T618 features an NPU (Neural Processing Unit). The specific capabilities and performance of these neural processing units may vary and depend on specific applications and software optimizations.
Overall, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G appears to have higher clock speeds, more advanced lithography, lower power consumption, and potentially superior neural processing capabilities compared to the Unisoc Tiger T618. However, it is important to consider that real-world performance can be influenced by various factors, including software optimization and application support.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G features a more diverse setup. It consists of 1x 3.13 GHz Cortex-A77 core, 3x 2.54 GHz Cortex-A77 cores, and 4x 2.05 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T618 has 2x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 6x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. The HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G boasts higher clock speeds and a greater variety of cores, potentially providing superior performance in multitasking and heavier workloads.
Both processors support the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern software and applications. However, when it comes to lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G has the advantage with its 5 nm process, which allows for greater power efficiency and potentially better overall performance compared to the 12 nm lithography of the Unisoc Tiger T618.
In terms of power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G has a lower TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 6 Watts compared to the 10 Watt TDP of the Unisoc Tiger T618. This suggests that the HiSilicon processor may have better power management and generate less heat during operation.
When it comes to neural processing capabilities, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G utilizes the Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny and HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0, while the Unisoc Tiger T618 features an NPU (Neural Processing Unit). The specific capabilities and performance of these neural processing units may vary and depend on specific applications and software optimizations.
Overall, the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G appears to have higher clock speeds, more advanced lithography, lower power consumption, and potentially superior neural processing capabilities compared to the Unisoc Tiger T618. However, it is important to consider that real-world performance can be influenced by various factors, including software optimization and application support.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 1x 3.13 GHz – Cortex-A77 3x 2.54 GHz – Cortex-A77 4x 2.05 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
2x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 5 nm | 12 nm |
Number of transistors | 15300 million | |
TDP | 6 Watt | 10 Watt |
Neural Processing | Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny, HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0 | NPU |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 16 GB | up to 6 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR5 | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 2750 MHz | 1866 MHz |
Memory-bus | 4x16 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 3.1 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G78 MP22 | Mali-G52 MP2 |
GPU Architecture | Valhall | Bifrost |
GPU frequency | 760 MHz | 850 MHz |
Execution units | 22 | 2 |
Shaders | 352 | 32 |
DirectX | 12 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 2.1 | 2.1 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | ES 3.2 |
Vulkan API | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 3840x2160 | 2400x1080 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 64M | |
Max Video Capture | 4K@60fps | FullHD@60fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) |
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 August |
Partnumber | T618 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Flagship | Mid-end |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
HiSilicon Kirin 710 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9200 Plus
2
Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G vs MediaTek Dimensity 6100 Plus
3
MediaTek Dimensity 9000 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9200
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Plus Gen 2
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1000L
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 vs HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G
7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 768G
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 460 vs Samsung Exynos 9611
9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 vs Samsung Exynos 7870
10
HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 845