HiSilicon Kirin 930 vs HiSilicon Kirin 960
The HiSilicon Kirin 930 and Kirin 960 are both processors designed by HiSilicon, a subsidiary of Huawei. While they share some similarities in terms of the number of cores and instruction set, there are some key differences in their specifications.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 features 4x 2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. On the other hand, the Kirin 960 boasts 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This indicates that the Kirin 960 has a higher clock speed and a more powerful architecture, which should result in better overall performance.
Both processors have 8 cores and use the ARMv8-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with a wide range of applications and software. However, the Kirin 960 utilizes a more advanced lithography process, with a 16 nm process compared to the Kirin 930's 28 nm process. This means that the transistors in the Kirin 960 are packed more densely, allowing for smaller and more power-efficient chips.
Speaking of transistors, the Kirin 930 has around 1000 million transistors, whereas the Kirin 960 boasts a significantly higher number of around 4000 million transistors. This increase in transistor count allows for improved performance and efficiency, as more transistors can handle more calculations simultaneously.
Interestingly, despite the improvements in architecture, lithography, and transistor count, both processors have the same thermal design power (TDP) of 5 Watts. This means that they consume the same amount of power and generate the same amount of heat, making them equally energy efficient.
In conclusion, while the HiSilicon Kirin 930 is a decent processor with a respectable clock speed, the Kirin 960 outshines it in terms of both architecture and lithography. With its higher clock speed and greater number of transistors, the Kirin 960 offers improved performance and efficiency.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 features 4x 2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. On the other hand, the Kirin 960 boasts 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This indicates that the Kirin 960 has a higher clock speed and a more powerful architecture, which should result in better overall performance.
Both processors have 8 cores and use the ARMv8-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with a wide range of applications and software. However, the Kirin 960 utilizes a more advanced lithography process, with a 16 nm process compared to the Kirin 930's 28 nm process. This means that the transistors in the Kirin 960 are packed more densely, allowing for smaller and more power-efficient chips.
Speaking of transistors, the Kirin 930 has around 1000 million transistors, whereas the Kirin 960 boasts a significantly higher number of around 4000 million transistors. This increase in transistor count allows for improved performance and efficiency, as more transistors can handle more calculations simultaneously.
Interestingly, despite the improvements in architecture, lithography, and transistor count, both processors have the same thermal design power (TDP) of 5 Watts. This means that they consume the same amount of power and generate the same amount of heat, making them equally energy efficient.
In conclusion, while the HiSilicon Kirin 930 is a decent processor with a respectable clock speed, the Kirin 960 outshines it in terms of both architecture and lithography. With its higher clock speed and greater number of transistors, the Kirin 960 offers improved performance and efficiency.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A73 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8-A |
Lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
Number of transistors | 1000 million | 4000 million |
TDP | 5 Watt | 5 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 6 GB | up to 6 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4 |
Memory frequency | 800 MHz | 1866 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Mali-G71 MP8 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Bifrost |
GPU frequency | 600 MHz | 900 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 8 |
Shaders | 64 | 128 |
DirectX | 11 | 11.3 |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2560x1600 | |
Max camera resolution | 1x 20MP | 1x 20MP, 2x 12MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | 4K@30fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 0.3 Gbps | 0.6 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 0.15 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 5 (802.11ac) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 4.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2015 Quarter 2 | 2016 October |
Partnumber | Hi3630 | Hi3660 |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Flagship |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
MediaTek Helio A25 vs Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 678
3
MediaTek Dimensity 720 vs Unisoc Tiger T310
4
Unisoc Tiger T606 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G Plus
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1050
7
Samsung Exynos 9810 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
8
Unisoc Tiger T612 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765
9
MediaTek Dimensity 7200 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 685
10
Samsung Exynos 9825 vs Samsung Exynos 990