HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs Unisoc Tiger T700
The HiSilicon Kirin 935 and Unisoc Tiger T700 are both processors used in mobile devices, but they have distinct specifications that set them apart.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, its CPU architecture consists of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This provides a balanced mix of processing power and energy efficiency. In addition, its ARMv8-A instruction set allows for enhanced performance and compatibility with modern applications. With a lithography of 28 nm and 1000 million transistors, the Kirin 935 strikes a good balance between power consumption and performance. Its TDP rating of 7 Watts indicates that it is designed to operate within a lower power envelope.
On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T700 features a different CPU architecture. It includes 2x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 6x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A5 cores. This combination provides more power in terms of processing speed, but may consume more energy as a result. The Tiger T700 utilizes the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, which offers newer features and improved performance compared to the ARMv8-A. With a lithography of 12 nm, the Tiger T700 benefits from a more advanced manufacturing process, which can result in improved efficiency and lower power consumption. However, it should be noted that the TDP rating for the Tiger T700 is slightly higher at 10 Watts.
In summary, while both processors offer 8 cores, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 focuses on a balance of power and efficiency with its Cortex-A53 architecture and 28 nm lithography. Meanwhile, the Unisoc Tiger T700 prioritizes processing speed with its Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A5 configuration and benefits from a more advanced 12 nm manufacturing process. Ultimately, the choice between these processors will depend on the specific requirements of the device and the desired balance of power, efficiency, and performance.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 935, its CPU architecture consists of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This provides a balanced mix of processing power and energy efficiency. In addition, its ARMv8-A instruction set allows for enhanced performance and compatibility with modern applications. With a lithography of 28 nm and 1000 million transistors, the Kirin 935 strikes a good balance between power consumption and performance. Its TDP rating of 7 Watts indicates that it is designed to operate within a lower power envelope.
On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T700 features a different CPU architecture. It includes 2x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 6x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A5 cores. This combination provides more power in terms of processing speed, but may consume more energy as a result. The Tiger T700 utilizes the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, which offers newer features and improved performance compared to the ARMv8-A. With a lithography of 12 nm, the Tiger T700 benefits from a more advanced manufacturing process, which can result in improved efficiency and lower power consumption. However, it should be noted that the TDP rating for the Tiger T700 is slightly higher at 10 Watts.
In summary, while both processors offer 8 cores, the HiSilicon Kirin 935 focuses on a balance of power and efficiency with its Cortex-A53 architecture and 28 nm lithography. Meanwhile, the Unisoc Tiger T700 prioritizes processing speed with its Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A5 configuration and benefits from a more advanced 12 nm manufacturing process. Ultimately, the choice between these processors will depend on the specific requirements of the device and the desired balance of power, efficiency, and performance.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
2x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A5 |
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 4 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-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 48MP |
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 March |
Partnumber | Hi3635 | T700 |
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
Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 782G
2
MediaTek Helio G95 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus vs MediaTek Helio G35
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 vs HiSilicon Kirin 990 4G
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 685 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1000
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 460 vs Apple A15 Bionic
7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 vs Apple A14 Bionic
8
HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G vs Apple A16 Bionic
9
Apple A13 Bionic vs Samsung Exynos 7904
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G vs MediaTek Helio P35