HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs MediaTek Dimensity 800
The HiSilicon Kirin 935 and MediaTek Dimensity 800 are both processors used in mobile devices. Despite some similarities, these processors have distinct specifications that set them apart.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it features eight CPU cores. The architecture consists of four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and another four Cortex-A53 cores running at 1.5 GHz. With ARMv8-A instruction set and a 28 nm lithography, this processor offers a balance between power and efficiency. It contains around 1000 million transistors and operates at a TDP of 7 Watts.
On the other hand, the MediaTek Dimensity 800 has four CPU cores, featuring a slightly different architecture. It consists of four Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz and four Cortex-A55 cores also running at 2.0 GHz. Its ARMv8.2-A instruction set provides improved performance and efficiency compared to the Kirin 935. With a more advanced 7 nm lithography, this processor achieves higher density and lower power consumption. It operates at a TDP of 10 Watts and also includes a Neural Processing Unit (NPU) for enhanced AI capabilities.
In terms of specifications, the Kirin 935 has a higher number of CPU cores but operates at a lower clock speed compared to the Dimensity 800. However, the Dimensity 800's architecture consists of more advanced Cortex-A76 cores, which offer better performance and efficiency. The Dimensity 800 also benefits from a more advanced lithography and includes the additional NPU, which can greatly improve AI-related tasks.
In summary, while the HiSilicon Kirin 935 and MediaTek Dimensity 800 are both processors used in mobile devices, they differ in terms of CPU core architecture, lithography, and additional features. The Kirin 935 offers a high number of cores but operates at a lower clock speed, while the Dimensity 800 features a more advanced architecture, smaller lithography, and includes an NPU for AI-related tasks. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on specific performance and efficiency requirements for a given device.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it features eight CPU cores. The architecture consists of four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and another four Cortex-A53 cores running at 1.5 GHz. With ARMv8-A instruction set and a 28 nm lithography, this processor offers a balance between power and efficiency. It contains around 1000 million transistors and operates at a TDP of 7 Watts.
On the other hand, the MediaTek Dimensity 800 has four CPU cores, featuring a slightly different architecture. It consists of four Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz and four Cortex-A55 cores also running at 2.0 GHz. Its ARMv8.2-A instruction set provides improved performance and efficiency compared to the Kirin 935. With a more advanced 7 nm lithography, this processor achieves higher density and lower power consumption. It operates at a TDP of 10 Watts and also includes a Neural Processing Unit (NPU) for enhanced AI capabilities.
In terms of specifications, the Kirin 935 has a higher number of CPU cores but operates at a lower clock speed compared to the Dimensity 800. However, the Dimensity 800's architecture consists of more advanced Cortex-A76 cores, which offer better performance and efficiency. The Dimensity 800 also benefits from a more advanced lithography and includes the additional NPU, which can greatly improve AI-related tasks.
In summary, while the HiSilicon Kirin 935 and MediaTek Dimensity 800 are both processors used in mobile devices, they differ in terms of CPU core architecture, lithography, and additional features. The Kirin 935 offers a high number of cores but operates at a lower clock speed, while the Dimensity 800 features a more advanced architecture, smaller lithography, and includes an NPU for AI-related tasks. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on specific performance and efficiency requirements for a given device.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
| Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A76 4x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
| Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
| Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8.2-A |
| Lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Number of transistors | 1000 million | |
| TDP | 7 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Neural Processing | NPU |
Memory (RAM)
| Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 16 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4X |
| Memory frequency | 800 MHz | 2133 MHz |
| Memory-bus | 2x32 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
| Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | UFS 2.2 |
Graphics
| GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Mali-G57 MP4 |
| GPU Architecture | Mali Midgard | Mali Valhall |
| GPU frequency | 680 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Execution units | 4 | 4 |
| Shaders | 64 | 64 |
| DirectX | 11 | 12 |
| OpenCL API | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
| Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
| Max screen resolution | 2560x1600 | 2520x1080@120Hz |
| Max camera resolution | 1x 20MP | 1x 80MP, 1x 32MP + 1x 16MP |
| Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | 4K@30FPS |
| Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP9 |
Wireless
| 4G network | Yes | Yes |
| 5G network | Yes | Yes |
| Peak Download Speed | 0.3 Gbps | 2.77 Gbps |
| Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 1.2 Gbps |
| Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 5 (802.11ac) |
| Bluetooth | 4.2 | 5.1 |
| Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS QZSS |
Supplemental Information
| Launch Date | 2015 Quarter 2 | 2020 Quarter 2 |
| Partnumber | Hi3635 | MT6873, MT6873V |
| Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
| Positioning | Mid-end | Mid-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
HiSilicon Kirin 8000 vs HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 5
3
MediaTek Dimensity 800U vs HiSilicon Kirin 9010
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 vs MediaTek Dimensity 6100 Plus
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 670
6
MediaTek Helio P70 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 435
7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 vs Samsung Exynos 7870
8
Unisoc Tiger T620 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 680
9
Unisoc Tiger T700 vs Apple A19
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite 2