HiSilicon Kirin 950 vs HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G
The HiSilicon Kirin 950 and the HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G are two powerful processors with their own sets of specifications. Let's compare them based on their CPU cores and architecture, instruction set, lithography, number of transistors, power consumption, and neural processing capabilities.
Starting with the Kirin 950, it features an architecture of 4x 2.4 GHz - Cortex-A72 and 4x 1.8 GHz - Cortex-A53. It has a total of 8 cores and supports the ARMv8-A instruction set. The lithography of this processor is 16 nm, and it consists of 2000 million transistors. In terms of power consumption, it has a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 5 Watts.
On the other hand, the Kirin 9000E 5G showcases a different architecture. It has 1x 3.13 GHz - Cortex-A77, 3x 2.54 GHz - Cortex-A77, and 4x 2.05 GHz - Cortex-A55 cores. Similar to the Kirin 950, it also houses 8 cores but operates on the ARMv8.2-A instruction set. The lithography has significantly improved to 5 nm, and the number of transistors has increased to 15300 million. The power consumption for this processor stands at 6 Watts. Additionally, it boasts neural processing capabilities with Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny and HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0.
In summary, the Kirin 950 offers a balanced CPU core composition with a lower lithography, fewer transistors, and a comparatively lower power consumption. On the other hand, the Kirin 9000E 5G showcases a more advanced CPU architecture, higher lithography, significantly more transistors, and slightly higher power consumption. Furthermore, it incorporates neural processing capabilities.
These specifications suggest that the Kirin 9000E 5G is a more advanced processor in terms of performance and efficiency. However, the specific usage and requirements of the processor should be considered when choosing between the two.
Starting with the Kirin 950, it features an architecture of 4x 2.4 GHz - Cortex-A72 and 4x 1.8 GHz - Cortex-A53. It has a total of 8 cores and supports the ARMv8-A instruction set. The lithography of this processor is 16 nm, and it consists of 2000 million transistors. In terms of power consumption, it has a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 5 Watts.
On the other hand, the Kirin 9000E 5G showcases a different architecture. It has 1x 3.13 GHz - Cortex-A77, 3x 2.54 GHz - Cortex-A77, and 4x 2.05 GHz - Cortex-A55 cores. Similar to the Kirin 950, it also houses 8 cores but operates on the ARMv8.2-A instruction set. The lithography has significantly improved to 5 nm, and the number of transistors has increased to 15300 million. The power consumption for this processor stands at 6 Watts. Additionally, it boasts neural processing capabilities with Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny and HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0.
In summary, the Kirin 950 offers a balanced CPU core composition with a lower lithography, fewer transistors, and a comparatively lower power consumption. On the other hand, the Kirin 9000E 5G showcases a more advanced CPU architecture, higher lithography, significantly more transistors, and slightly higher power consumption. Furthermore, it incorporates neural processing capabilities.
These specifications suggest that the Kirin 9000E 5G is a more advanced processor in terms of performance and efficiency. However, the specific usage and requirements of the processor should be considered when choosing between the two.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A72 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
1x 3.13 GHz – Cortex-A77 3x 2.54 GHz – Cortex-A77 4x 2.05 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
Number of transistors | 2000 million | 15300 million |
TDP | 5 Watt | 6 Watt |
Neural Processing | Ascend Lite + Ascend Tiny, HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture 2.0 |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 4 GB | up to 16 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4 | LPDDR5 |
Memory frequency | 1333 MHz | 2750 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit | 4x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | UFS 3.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T880 MP4 | Mali-G78 MP22 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Valhall |
GPU frequency | 900 MHz | 760 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 22 |
Shaders | 64 | 352 |
DirectX | 11.2 | 12 |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 2.1 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 3840x2160 | |
Max camera resolution | 1x 31MP, 2x 13MP | |
Max Video Capture | FullHD@60fps | 4K@60fps |
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 | 4.6 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 2.5 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 6 (802.11ax) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 5.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS NavIC |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2015 November | 2020 October |
Partnumber | Hi3650 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Flagship | Flagship |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Apple A13 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 888
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 632 vs MediaTek Helio G25
3
MediaTek Dimensity 920 vs HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 680
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 vs Apple A10 Fusion
6
MediaTek Dimensity 700 vs MediaTek Dimensity 900
7
Apple A12 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
8
HiSilicon Kirin 9000 5G vs Apple A11 Bionic
9
MediaTek Helio P70 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9000
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 750G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 845