HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs HiSilicon Kirin 960
The HiSilicon Kirin 935 and HiSilicon Kirin 960 are two processors that are widely used in modern smartphones and tablets. These processors have their own unique specifications and features, which make them suitable for different types of devices and usage scenarios.
When it comes to the CPU cores and architecture, both processors have 8 cores and use the ARMv8-A instruction set. However, there are some differences in the specific architecture and clock speeds of the cores.
The Kirin 935 has 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. On the other hand, the Kirin 960 features 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This difference in clock speeds means that the Kirin 960 is expected to offer better performance and faster multitasking compared to the Kirin 935.
Another important aspect to consider is the lithography, which refers to the size of the transistors on the processor. The Kirin 935 has a lithography of 28 nm, while the Kirin 960 has a smaller lithography of 16 nm. A smaller lithography generally results in better power efficiency and improved performance.
The number of transistors is also different between these two processors. The Kirin 935 has 1000 million transistors, whereas the Kirin 960 has 4000 million transistors. This indicates that the Kirin 960 is more advanced and capable of handling more complex tasks compared to the Kirin 935.
Lastly, the Kirin 935 has a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 7 watts, while the Kirin 960 has a lower TDP of 5 watts. A lower TDP means that the Kirin 960 is more power efficient and generates less heat, which is beneficial for device longevity and battery life.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 and HiSilicon Kirin 960 are both capable processors, but the Kirin 960 offers better performance, power efficiency, and advanced capabilities due to its higher clock speeds, smaller lithography, more transistors, and lower TDP.
When it comes to the CPU cores and architecture, both processors have 8 cores and use the ARMv8-A instruction set. However, there are some differences in the specific architecture and clock speeds of the cores.
The Kirin 935 has 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. On the other hand, the Kirin 960 features 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This difference in clock speeds means that the Kirin 960 is expected to offer better performance and faster multitasking compared to the Kirin 935.
Another important aspect to consider is the lithography, which refers to the size of the transistors on the processor. The Kirin 935 has a lithography of 28 nm, while the Kirin 960 has a smaller lithography of 16 nm. A smaller lithography generally results in better power efficiency and improved performance.
The number of transistors is also different between these two processors. The Kirin 935 has 1000 million transistors, whereas the Kirin 960 has 4000 million transistors. This indicates that the Kirin 960 is more advanced and capable of handling more complex tasks compared to the Kirin 935.
Lastly, the Kirin 935 has a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 7 watts, while the Kirin 960 has a lower TDP of 5 watts. A lower TDP means that the Kirin 960 is more power efficient and generates less heat, which is beneficial for device longevity and battery life.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 and HiSilicon Kirin 960 are both capable processors, but the Kirin 960 offers better performance, power efficiency, and advanced capabilities due to its higher clock speeds, smaller lithography, more transistors, and lower TDP.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 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 | 7 Watt | 5 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 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 | 680 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 | Hi3635 | 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
Samsung Exynos 2100 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Plus
2
MediaTek Helio P65 vs Google Tensor G3
3
Apple A17 Pro vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 632
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 vs MediaTek Dimensity 7050
5
Samsung Exynos 9810 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 vs MediaTek Dimensity 700
7
MediaTek Dimensity 1000 vs MediaTek Dimensity 800U
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Plus Gen 2 vs Apple A13 Bionic
9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 vs Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G
10
HiSilicon Kirin 9000 5G vs HiSilicon Kirin 970