HiSilicon Kirin 930 vs Unisoc Tiger T710
When comparing the specifications of the HiSilicon Kirin 930 and the Unisoc Tiger T710 processors, several key differences can be observed.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 features an architecture of 4x 2 GHz – Cortex-A53 and 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53, while the Unisoc Tiger T710 has 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 and 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55. This indicates that the Unisoc Tiger T710 has higher clock speeds for both its Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A55 cores.
Both processors have 8 cores and an ARMv8 instruction set, meaning they are compatible with the latest software and can execute advanced operations.
In terms of lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 has a 28 nm lithography, whereas the Unisoc Tiger T710 features a more advanced 12 nm lithography. This indicates that the Unisoc Tiger T710 is manufactured using a more efficient and smaller process, potentially leading to better power consumption and performance.
Additionally, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 has a number of transistors reaching 1000 million, suggesting a high level of complexity and performance capabilities. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T710 does not provide information regarding the number of transistors, so it is unclear how it compares in this aspect.
Another notable difference is the presence of a Dual NPU (Neural Processing Unit) in the Unisoc Tiger T710, which indicates that this processor has dedicated hardware to accelerate AI and machine learning tasks. The HiSilicon Kirin 930 does not provide information regarding Neural Processing capabilities.
Based on these specifications, it can be concluded that the Unisoc Tiger T710 offers a more advanced and efficient architecture with higher clock speeds, a smaller lithography, and dedicated AI processing capabilities. However, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 may still have advantages in terms of the number of transistors and potential performance capabilities not explicitly mentioned. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on the specific requirements and priorities of the intended application.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 features an architecture of 4x 2 GHz – Cortex-A53 and 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53, while the Unisoc Tiger T710 has 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 and 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55. This indicates that the Unisoc Tiger T710 has higher clock speeds for both its Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A55 cores.
Both processors have 8 cores and an ARMv8 instruction set, meaning they are compatible with the latest software and can execute advanced operations.
In terms of lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 has a 28 nm lithography, whereas the Unisoc Tiger T710 features a more advanced 12 nm lithography. This indicates that the Unisoc Tiger T710 is manufactured using a more efficient and smaller process, potentially leading to better power consumption and performance.
Additionally, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 has a number of transistors reaching 1000 million, suggesting a high level of complexity and performance capabilities. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T710 does not provide information regarding the number of transistors, so it is unclear how it compares in this aspect.
Another notable difference is the presence of a Dual NPU (Neural Processing Unit) in the Unisoc Tiger T710, which indicates that this processor has dedicated hardware to accelerate AI and machine learning tasks. The HiSilicon Kirin 930 does not provide information regarding Neural Processing capabilities.
Based on these specifications, it can be concluded that the Unisoc Tiger T710 offers a more advanced and efficient architecture with higher clock speeds, a smaller lithography, and dedicated AI processing capabilities. However, the HiSilicon Kirin 930 may still have advantages in terms of the number of transistors and potential performance capabilities not explicitly mentioned. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on the specific requirements and priorities of the intended application.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
Number of transistors | 1000 million | |
TDP | 5 Watt | |
Neural Processing | Dual NPU |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 6 GB | up to 8 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 800 MHz | 1866 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Imagination PowerVR GM9446 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Rogue |
GPU frequency | 600 MHz | 800 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | |
Shaders | 64 | |
DirectX | 11 | |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 4.0 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.1 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2560x1600 | |
Max camera resolution | 1x 20MP | 1x 24MP |
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 | 0.3 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 0.1 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 5 (802.11ac) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 5.0 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2015 Quarter 2 | 2019 |
Partnumber | Hi3630 | T710 |
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 7 Gen 1 vs MediaTek Helio G37
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G vs MediaTek Helio G85
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 vs Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G
4
HiSilicon Kirin 9000 5G vs Unisoc SC9863A
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 vs MediaTek Dimensity 700
6
MediaTek Dimensity 1080 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8200
7
Samsung Exynos 2200 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G Plus
9
MediaTek Dimensity 6080 vs MediaTek Dimensity 720
10
Samsung Exynos 8895 vs Samsung Exynos 1380