HiSilicon Kirin 935 vs Unisoc Tiger T710
The HiSilicon Kirin 935 and the Unisoc Tiger T710 are two processors with distinct specifications. Let's compare them based on their specifications.
In terms of CPU architecture, the Kirin 935 employs a combination of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, totaling eight cores. On the other hand, the Tiger T710 uses 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. Again, it comprises a total of eight cores.
Moving on to the instruction set, the Kirin 935 is equipped with ARMv8-A, while the Tiger T710 uses ARMv8.2-A. This distinction could impact the processors' compatibility and efficiency in running different applications and software.
In terms of lithography, the Kirin 935 adopts 28 nm technology, while the Tiger T710 employs 12 nm technology. The difference in lithography implies that the Tiger T710 may have better power efficiency and potentially improved performance due to higher transistor density.
Additionally, the Kirin 935 consists of approximately 1000 million transistors, whereas the Tiger T710 does not provide information on the number of transistors used. This may indicate that the Kirin 935 has a more sophisticated semiconductor design.
Lastly, the Kirin 935 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 7 Watts, without any information available for the Tiger T710 TDP. A lower TDP generally means better power efficiency and reduced heat generation.
Although the Tiger T710 does not offer detailed specifications for neural processing, it does mention the inclusion of dual neural processing units (NPU). This suggests that the Tiger T710 may have advanced capabilities in artificial intelligence tasks due to its NPU integration.
In conclusion, while both processors possess eight CPU cores, they differ in terms of CPU architecture, instruction set, lithography, and other features. Further evaluation is necessary to determine which processor would be a better fit for specific use cases or devices.
In terms of CPU architecture, the Kirin 935 employs a combination of 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A53 cores and 4x 1.5 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, totaling eight cores. On the other hand, the Tiger T710 uses 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. Again, it comprises a total of eight cores.
Moving on to the instruction set, the Kirin 935 is equipped with ARMv8-A, while the Tiger T710 uses ARMv8.2-A. This distinction could impact the processors' compatibility and efficiency in running different applications and software.
In terms of lithography, the Kirin 935 adopts 28 nm technology, while the Tiger T710 employs 12 nm technology. The difference in lithography implies that the Tiger T710 may have better power efficiency and potentially improved performance due to higher transistor density.
Additionally, the Kirin 935 consists of approximately 1000 million transistors, whereas the Tiger T710 does not provide information on the number of transistors used. This may indicate that the Kirin 935 has a more sophisticated semiconductor design.
Lastly, the Kirin 935 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 7 Watts, without any information available for the Tiger T710 TDP. A lower TDP generally means better power efficiency and reduced heat generation.
Although the Tiger T710 does not offer detailed specifications for neural processing, it does mention the inclusion of dual neural processing units (NPU). This suggests that the Tiger T710 may have advanced capabilities in artificial intelligence tasks due to its NPU integration.
In conclusion, while both processors possess eight CPU cores, they differ in terms of CPU architecture, instruction set, lithography, and other features. Further evaluation is necessary to determine which processor would be a better fit for specific use cases or devices.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A53 4x 1.5 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 4x 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 | |
Neural Processing | Dual NPU |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 8 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 800 MHz | 1866 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T628 MP4 | Imagination PowerVR GM9446 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Rogue |
GPU frequency | 680 MHz | 800 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | |
Shaders | 64 | |
DirectX | 11 | |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 4.0 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.1 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2560x1600 | |
Max camera resolution | 1x 20MP | 1x 24MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | 4K@30fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
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 |
Partnumber | Hi3635 | T710 |
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 Helio G96 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
2
MediaTek Helio P60 vs Apple A14 Bionic
3
HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G vs Samsung Exynos 1380
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 vs Apple A11 Bionic
5
Unisoc Tiger T616 vs Samsung Exynos 8890
6
MediaTek Helio G36 vs MediaTek Dimensity 920
7
HiSilicon Kirin 990 4G vs HiSilicon Kirin 710
8
MediaTek Dimensity 7050 vs Samsung Exynos 9820
9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G vs HiSilicon Kirin 935
10
MediaTek Helio G70 vs MediaTek Helio G90