HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs Unisoc Tiger T618
When comparing the specifications of the HiSilicon Kirin 935 and the Unisoc Tiger T618 processors, several differences become apparent.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 features 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, providing a total of 8 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T618 has 2x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 6x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores, also totaling 8 cores. Therefore, both processors have the same number of cores, but the architecture differs.
In terms of instruction set, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 employs the ARMv8-A, while the Unisoc Tiger T618 utilizes the ARMv8.2-A. This indicates that the latter processor has a more advanced instruction set architecture compared to the former.
Another notable difference lies in the lithography process. The HiSilicon Kirin 935 operates on a 28 nm process, while the Unisoc Tiger T618 uses a more advanced 12 nm lithography process. A smaller lithography process generally results in improved performance and energy efficiency.
In terms of power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 has a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 7 Watts, whereas the Unisoc Tiger T618 has a slightly higher TDP of 10 Watts. This means that the HiSilicon processor is designed to be more power-efficient than the Unisoc processor.
Additionally, the Unisoc Tiger T618 stands out with the inclusion of a Neural Processing Unit (NPU). This specialized unit enables better artificial intelligence (AI) processing, potentially enhancing various applications that rely on AI technologies.
In summary, while both the HiSilicon Kirin 935 and the Unisoc Tiger T618 processors have 8 cores, the Unisoc processor features a more advanced instruction set architecture and a smaller lithography process. However, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 processor boasts lower power consumption. The Unisoc Tiger T618 processor also includes an NPU, which can provide better AI processing capabilities. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on the specific needs and priorities of the user or device manufacturer.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 features 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, providing a total of 8 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T618 has 2x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 6x 2.0 GHz Cortex-A55 cores, also totaling 8 cores. Therefore, both processors have the same number of cores, but the architecture differs.
In terms of instruction set, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 employs the ARMv8-A, while the Unisoc Tiger T618 utilizes the ARMv8.2-A. This indicates that the latter processor has a more advanced instruction set architecture compared to the former.
Another notable difference lies in the lithography process. The HiSilicon Kirin 935 operates on a 28 nm process, while the Unisoc Tiger T618 uses a more advanced 12 nm lithography process. A smaller lithography process generally results in improved performance and energy efficiency.
In terms of power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 has a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 7 Watts, whereas the Unisoc Tiger T618 has a slightly higher TDP of 10 Watts. This means that the HiSilicon processor is designed to be more power-efficient than the Unisoc processor.
Additionally, the Unisoc Tiger T618 stands out with the inclusion of a Neural Processing Unit (NPU). This specialized unit enables better artificial intelligence (AI) processing, potentially enhancing various applications that rely on AI technologies.
In summary, while both the HiSilicon Kirin 935 and the Unisoc Tiger T618 processors have 8 cores, the Unisoc processor features a more advanced instruction set architecture and a smaller lithography process. However, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 processor boasts lower power consumption. The Unisoc Tiger T618 processor also includes an NPU, which can provide better AI processing capabilities. Ultimately, the choice between these processors would depend on the specific needs and priorities of the user or device manufacturer.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
2x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 2.0 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 |
Neural Processing | NPU |
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 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Mali-G52 MP2 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Bifrost |
GPU frequency | 680 MHz | 850 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 2 |
Shaders | 64 | 32 |
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 64M |
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 | 2019 August |
Partnumber | Hi3635 | T618 |
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 8100 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 662
2
Apple A17 Pro vs MediaTek Helio P65
3
Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G vs HiSilicon Kirin 970
4
MediaTek Dimensity 7050 vs Samsung Exynos 9611
5
MediaTek Helio G36 vs Unisoc SC9863A
6
Samsung Exynos 990 vs HiSilicon Kirin 960
7
HiSilicon Kirin 710A vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus
8
Unisoc Tiger T310 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 768G
9
MediaTek Dimensity 1000L vs MediaTek Helio G85
10
Samsung Exynos 9609 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 695