HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs Unisoc SC9832E
The HiSilicon Kirin 935 and the Unisoc SC9832E are two processors that differ in their specifications.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it utilizes a combination of Cortex-A53 cores in its architecture. It is comprised of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. With a total of 8 cores, this processor offers a balance between performance and power efficiency. The instruction set of the Kirin 935 is ARMv8-A, ensuring compatibility with the latest software. It is manufactured using a 28 nm process and contains approximately 1000 million transistors. The thermal design power (TDP) of this processor is rated at 7 watts, indicating its power consumption.
On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E is equipped with 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This processor has a slightly lower clock speed compared to the Kirin 935, potentially resulting in slightly reduced performance. The instruction set is also ARMv8-A, ensuring compatibility with the latest software and applications. Similar to the Kirin 935, the SC9832E is manufactured using a 28 nm process. Additionally, it has a TDP of 7 watts, indicating that it consumes a comparable amount of power.
In summary, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 offers a higher number of cores and a higher clock speed for improved performance potential. However, the Unisoc SC9832E still offers a capable performance with its 4x Cortex-A53 cores. Both processors utilize the ARMv8-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with the latest software. Furthermore, they are manufactured using a 28 nm process and have a TDP of 7 watts, indicating comparable power consumption. Ultimately, the choice between these processors will depend on the specific requirements and preferences of the user.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it utilizes a combination of Cortex-A53 cores in its architecture. It is comprised of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. With a total of 8 cores, this processor offers a balance between performance and power efficiency. The instruction set of the Kirin 935 is ARMv8-A, ensuring compatibility with the latest software. It is manufactured using a 28 nm process and contains approximately 1000 million transistors. The thermal design power (TDP) of this processor is rated at 7 watts, indicating its power consumption.
On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E is equipped with 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This processor has a slightly lower clock speed compared to the Kirin 935, potentially resulting in slightly reduced performance. The instruction set is also ARMv8-A, ensuring compatibility with the latest software and applications. Similar to the Kirin 935, the SC9832E is manufactured using a 28 nm process. Additionally, it has a TDP of 7 watts, indicating that it consumes a comparable amount of power.
In summary, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 offers a higher number of cores and a higher clock speed for improved performance potential. However, the Unisoc SC9832E still offers a capable performance with its 4x Cortex-A53 cores. Both processors utilize the ARMv8-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with the latest software. Furthermore, they are manufactured using a 28 nm process and have a TDP of 7 watts, indicating comparable power consumption. Ultimately, the choice between these processors will depend on the specific requirements and preferences of the user.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 1.4 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8-A |
Lithography | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Number of transistors | 1000 million | |
TDP | 7 Watt | 7 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 2 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR3 |
Memory frequency | 800 MHz | 667 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Mali-T820 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Midgard |
GPU frequency | 680 MHz | 680 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 1 |
Shaders | 64 | 4 |
DirectX | 11 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 1.2 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2560x1600 | 1440x720 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 20MP | 1x 13MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | FullHD@30fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
H.264 (AVC) |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 0.3 Gbps | 0.15 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 0.05 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 4 (802.11n) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 4.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2015 Quarter 2 | 2018 |
Partnumber | Hi3635 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Low-end |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
HiSilicon Kirin 990 4G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 685
2
MediaTek Dimensity 1300 vs Samsung Exynos 7880
3
Samsung Exynos 7870 vs Samsung Exynos 7420
4
Samsung Exynos 850 vs Unisoc Tiger T310
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 768G
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus vs Samsung Exynos 1380
7
MediaTek Helio G25 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G Plus
8
HiSilicon Kirin 980 vs Samsung Exynos 7904
9
MediaTek Dimensity 1000 Plus vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 Plus
10
Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G vs MediaTek Dimensity 9000