HiSilicon Kirin 950 vs Unisoc Tiger T310
When comparing the HiSilicon Kirin 950 and the Unisoc Tiger T310 processors, there are several noticeable differences in their specifications.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 950 boasts a 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A72 architecture and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 architecture. This means it has a total of 8 cores, providing a balanced combination of high-performance and power efficiency. On the other hand, the Tiger T310 features a 1x 2 GHz Cortex-A75 architecture and 3x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 architecture. It has a quad-core setup, emphasizing a single high-performance core with three lower-power cores.
In terms of instruction set, the Kirin 950 utilizes the ARMv8-A instruction set, while the Tiger T310 supports the ARMv8.2-A instruction set. Both processors have the advantage of being based on modern instruction sets, enabling enhanced functionality and compatibility with the latest software.
When it comes to lithography, the Kirin 950 has a 16 nm lithography, while the Tiger T310 comes with a more advanced 12 nm lithography. The smaller the lithography, the more transistors can fit on a chip, resulting in better performance and energy efficiency. Speaking of transistors, the Kirin 950 has approximately 2000 million transistors, while the number of transistors for the Tiger T310 is not specified.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the thermal design power (TDP) for the Kirin 950 is 5 Watts, which provides an indication of its power consumption and heat dissipation. Unfortunately, the TDP for the Tiger T310 is not provided in the given specifications.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 950 and the Unisoc Tiger T310 processors have different CPU architectures, lithographies, and specifications in terms of their cores and instruction sets. While the Kirin 950 offers a higher number of cores and an older lithography, the Tiger T310 focuses on a single high-performance core and a more advanced lithography.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 950 boasts a 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A72 architecture and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 architecture. This means it has a total of 8 cores, providing a balanced combination of high-performance and power efficiency. On the other hand, the Tiger T310 features a 1x 2 GHz Cortex-A75 architecture and 3x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 architecture. It has a quad-core setup, emphasizing a single high-performance core with three lower-power cores.
In terms of instruction set, the Kirin 950 utilizes the ARMv8-A instruction set, while the Tiger T310 supports the ARMv8.2-A instruction set. Both processors have the advantage of being based on modern instruction sets, enabling enhanced functionality and compatibility with the latest software.
When it comes to lithography, the Kirin 950 has a 16 nm lithography, while the Tiger T310 comes with a more advanced 12 nm lithography. The smaller the lithography, the more transistors can fit on a chip, resulting in better performance and energy efficiency. Speaking of transistors, the Kirin 950 has approximately 2000 million transistors, while the number of transistors for the Tiger T310 is not specified.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the thermal design power (TDP) for the Kirin 950 is 5 Watts, which provides an indication of its power consumption and heat dissipation. Unfortunately, the TDP for the Tiger T310 is not provided in the given specifications.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 950 and the Unisoc Tiger T310 processors have different CPU architectures, lithographies, and specifications in terms of their cores and instruction sets. While the Kirin 950 offers a higher number of cores and an older lithography, the Tiger T310 focuses on a single high-performance core and a more advanced lithography.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A72 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
1x 2 GHz – Cortex-A75 3x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
Number of transistors | 2000 million | |
TDP | 5 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 4 GB | up to 4 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4 | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 1333 MHz | 1333 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T880 MP4 | Imagination PowerVR GE8300 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Rogue |
GPU frequency | 900 MHz | 660 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 2 |
Shaders | 64 | 32 |
DirectX | 11.2 | 10 |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 3.0 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 1600x720 | |
Max camera resolution | 1x 31MP, 2x 13MP | 1x 16MP + 1x 8MP |
Max Video Capture | FullHD@60fps | FullHD@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 November | 2019 April |
Partnumber | Hi3650 | T310 |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Flagship | Low-end |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Samsung Exynos 990 vs MediaTek Helio P90
2
HiSilicon Kirin 820 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 820
3
Samsung Exynos 1330 vs MediaTek Dimensity 800
4
MediaTek Dimensity 800U vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 690
5
Samsung Exynos 9820 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
6
MediaTek Dimensity 9000 Plus vs MediaTek Helio G37
7
MediaTek Helio G95 vs Samsung Exynos 9810
8
MediaTek Helio G35 vs HiSilicon Kirin 930
9
Samsung Exynos 980 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 782G
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9200