HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs HiSilicon Kirin 950
The HiSilicon Kirin 935 and HiSilicon Kirin 950 are both processors developed by HiSilicon, a subsidiary of Huawei. Although they share similarities, they also have distinct specifications that differentiate them from each other.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 935 consists of four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.5 GHz. On the other hand, the Kirin 950 features four Cortex-A72 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz and four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz. While both processors have eight cores, the Kirin 950's architecture is more advanced with the inclusion of Cortex-A72 cores.
When it comes to the instruction set, both processors employ the ARMv8-A architecture, which offers enhanced performance and improved energy efficiency. This ensures compatibility with a wide range of software and applications.
Another significant difference lies in the lithography process. The Kirin 935 has a 28 nm lithography, while the Kirin 950 boasts a more advanced 16 nm lithography. This reduction in lithography size results in better power efficiency and heat management, allowing for improved overall performance.
Furthermore, the number of transistors present in the Kirin 950 is double that of the Kirin 935. With 2000 million transistors, the Kirin 950 offers greater transistor density, which ultimately leads to faster processing speeds and increased overall performance.
The Kirin 950 also has a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 5 Watts compared to the Kirin 935's 7 Watts. This signifies that the Kirin 950 consumes less power while delivering comparable or even superior performance.
In conclusion, while both processors are part of the same series, the HiSilicon Kirin 950 offers several notable improvements over the Kirin 935. It features a more advanced architecture, a smaller lithography process, double the number of transistors, and lower power consumption. These advancements collectively result in a faster and more efficient processing experience for users.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 935 consists of four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.5 GHz. On the other hand, the Kirin 950 features four Cortex-A72 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz and four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz. While both processors have eight cores, the Kirin 950's architecture is more advanced with the inclusion of Cortex-A72 cores.
When it comes to the instruction set, both processors employ the ARMv8-A architecture, which offers enhanced performance and improved energy efficiency. This ensures compatibility with a wide range of software and applications.
Another significant difference lies in the lithography process. The Kirin 935 has a 28 nm lithography, while the Kirin 950 boasts a more advanced 16 nm lithography. This reduction in lithography size results in better power efficiency and heat management, allowing for improved overall performance.
Furthermore, the number of transistors present in the Kirin 950 is double that of the Kirin 935. With 2000 million transistors, the Kirin 950 offers greater transistor density, which ultimately leads to faster processing speeds and increased overall performance.
The Kirin 950 also has a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 5 Watts compared to the Kirin 935's 7 Watts. This signifies that the Kirin 950 consumes less power while delivering comparable or even superior performance.
In conclusion, while both processors are part of the same series, the HiSilicon Kirin 950 offers several notable improvements over the Kirin 935. It features a more advanced architecture, a smaller lithography process, double the number of transistors, and lower power consumption. These advancements collectively result in a faster and more efficient processing experience for users.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A72 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 | 2000 million |
TDP | 7 Watt | 5 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 4 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4 |
Memory frequency | 800 MHz | 1333 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | UFS 2.0 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Mali-T880 MP4 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Midgard |
GPU frequency | 680 MHz | 900 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 4 |
Shaders | 64 | 64 |
DirectX | 11 | 11.2 |
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 31MP, 2x 13MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | FullHD@60fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 0.3 Gbps | 0.3 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 0.05 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 | 2015 November |
Partnumber | Hi3635 | Hi3650 |
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 G95 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 768G
2
MediaTek Dimensity 8200 vs MediaTek Helio G25
3
Samsung Exynos 9611 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 782G
5
HiSilicon Kirin 930 vs Unisoc Tiger T612
6
Samsung Exynos 1280 vs MediaTek Dimensity 820
7
Samsung Exynos 980 vs Samsung Exynos 9825
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 1 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8020
9
MediaTek Dimensity 6080 vs MediaTek Helio A25
10
Apple A15 Bionic vs Unisoc SC7731E