HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs Unisoc Tiger T616
The HiSilicon Kirin 935 and the Unisoc Tiger T616 are two processors that can be compared based on their specifications.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it is built on a 28 nm lithography process and features eight cores. Its architecture consists of four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and another four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.5 GHz. With an instruction set of ARMv8-A, this processor offers a balance between performance and power efficiency. It has a total of 1000 million transistors and operates at a thermal design power (TDP) of 7 Watts.
Turning to the Unisoc Tiger T616, it stands out with its small 12 nm lithography, which allows for better power efficiency and heat dissipation. Like the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it also features eight cores. However, the architecture of the Tiger T616 is different. It consists of two Cortex-A75 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz for better performance, paired with six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz for power efficiency. This processor uses the ARMv8.2-A instruction set and has a TDP of 10 Watts.
In summary, we can see that the HiSilicon Kirin 935 operates on a slightly older 28 nm lithography compared to the more advanced 12 nm lithography of the Unisoc Tiger T616. While the Kirin 935 offers an equal number of cores, the Tiger T616 employs a more advanced architecture with Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A55 cores for improved performance and power efficiency. Both processors support the ARMv8 instruction set, but the Tiger T616 uses the ARMv8.2-A version, which might offer additional features or improvements. It's worth noting that the TDP of the Tiger T616 is higher at 10 Watts compared to 7 Watts for the Kirin 935, which could impact power consumption and heat generation. Overall, these specifications highlight the differences between the two processors, allowing users to choose based on their specific needs and priorities.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it is built on a 28 nm lithography process and features eight cores. Its architecture consists of four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and another four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.5 GHz. With an instruction set of ARMv8-A, this processor offers a balance between performance and power efficiency. It has a total of 1000 million transistors and operates at a thermal design power (TDP) of 7 Watts.
Turning to the Unisoc Tiger T616, it stands out with its small 12 nm lithography, which allows for better power efficiency and heat dissipation. Like the HiSilicon Kirin 935, it also features eight cores. However, the architecture of the Tiger T616 is different. It consists of two Cortex-A75 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz for better performance, paired with six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz for power efficiency. This processor uses the ARMv8.2-A instruction set and has a TDP of 10 Watts.
In summary, we can see that the HiSilicon Kirin 935 operates on a slightly older 28 nm lithography compared to the more advanced 12 nm lithography of the Unisoc Tiger T616. While the Kirin 935 offers an equal number of cores, the Tiger T616 employs a more advanced architecture with Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A55 cores for improved performance and power efficiency. Both processors support the ARMv8 instruction set, but the Tiger T616 uses the ARMv8.2-A version, which might offer additional features or improvements. It's worth noting that the TDP of the Tiger T616 is higher at 10 Watts compared to 7 Watts for the Kirin 935, which could impact power consumption and heat generation. Overall, these specifications highlight the differences between the two processors, allowing users to choose based on their specific needs and priorities.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
2x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 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 | 7 Watt | 10 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 6 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 800 MHz | 1866 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Mali-G57 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Bifrost |
GPU frequency | 680 MHz | 750 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 1 |
Shaders | 64 | 16 |
DirectX | 11 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 2.1 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2560x1600 | 2400x1080 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 20MP | 1x 64MP, 2x 32MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | FullHD@60fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) |
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 | 2021 |
Partnumber | Hi3635 | T616 |
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
MediaTek Dimensity 800U vs MediaTek Dimensity 1300
2
Samsung Exynos 1280 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 821
3
MediaTek Helio G95 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 675
4
MediaTek Dimensity 8100 vs Samsung Exynos 2100
5
MediaTek Helio G70 vs Samsung Exynos 980
6
Samsung Exynos 850 vs Unisoc Tiger T618
7
Samsung Exynos 9611 vs Samsung Exynos 7904
8
Unisoc Tiger T700 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9000
9
MediaTek Dimensity 1000L vs Samsung Exynos 8890
10
MediaTek Dimensity 9000 Plus vs Samsung Exynos 7870