HiSilicon Kirin 955 vs Unisoc SC9832E
The HiSilicon Kirin 955 and the Unisoc SC9832E are two processors that differ significantly in their specifications. Let's explore their differences.
In terms of the CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 955 features 4x 2.5 GHz Cortex-A72 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E has 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This means that the Kirin 955 has a more powerful and diverse core setup than the SC9832E.
Next, looking at the number of cores, the Kirin 955 has 8 cores, while the SC9832E has 4 cores. This indicates that the Kirin 955 has twice the number of cores, potentially leading to better multitasking and overall performance.
Both processors share the ARMv8-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern software. However, there is a difference in their lithography. The Kirin 955 utilizes a more advanced 16 nm lithography, while the SC9832E is built on a 28 nm lithography. A smaller lithography generally leads to improved power efficiency and performance.
Another notable discrepancy is in the number of transistors. The Kirin 955 boasts 2000 million transistors, whereas the SC9832E does not provide information on the number of transistors. A higher number of transistors typically indicates a more complex and powerful processor.
Finally, let's consider the thermal design power (TDP). The Kirin 955 has a TDP of 5 Watts, while the SC9832E has a TDP of 7 Watts. A lower TDP suggests better power efficiency, potentially leading to longer battery life and decreased heat generation.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 955 outperforms the Unisoc SC9832E in various aspects. With a more diverse and powerful core setup, a smaller lithography, a higher number of transistors, and a lower power consumption, the Kirin 955 offers superior performance and energy efficiency.
In terms of the CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 955 features 4x 2.5 GHz Cortex-A72 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E has 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. This means that the Kirin 955 has a more powerful and diverse core setup than the SC9832E.
Next, looking at the number of cores, the Kirin 955 has 8 cores, while the SC9832E has 4 cores. This indicates that the Kirin 955 has twice the number of cores, potentially leading to better multitasking and overall performance.
Both processors share the ARMv8-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern software. However, there is a difference in their lithography. The Kirin 955 utilizes a more advanced 16 nm lithography, while the SC9832E is built on a 28 nm lithography. A smaller lithography generally leads to improved power efficiency and performance.
Another notable discrepancy is in the number of transistors. The Kirin 955 boasts 2000 million transistors, whereas the SC9832E does not provide information on the number of transistors. A higher number of transistors typically indicates a more complex and powerful processor.
Finally, let's consider the thermal design power (TDP). The Kirin 955 has a TDP of 5 Watts, while the SC9832E has a TDP of 7 Watts. A lower TDP suggests better power efficiency, potentially leading to longer battery life and decreased heat generation.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 955 outperforms the Unisoc SC9832E in various aspects. With a more diverse and powerful core setup, a smaller lithography, a higher number of transistors, and a lower power consumption, the Kirin 955 offers superior performance and energy efficiency.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.5 GHz – Cortex-A72 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
4x 1.4 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8-A |
Lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Number of transistors | 2000 million | |
TDP | 5 Watt | 7 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 4 GB | up to 2 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4 | LPDDR3 |
Memory frequency | 1333 MHz | 667 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x32 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.0 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-T880 MP4 | Mali-T820 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Midgard | Midgard |
GPU frequency | 900 MHz | 680 MHz |
Execution units | 4 | 1 |
Shaders | 64 | 4 |
DirectX | 11.2 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 1.2 | 1.2 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 1440x720 | |
Max camera resolution | 1x 31MP, 2x 13MP | 1x 13MP |
Max Video Capture | FullHD@60fps | FullHD@30fps |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 |
H.264 (AVC) |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 0.3 Gbps | 0.15 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 0.05 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 4 (802.11n) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 4.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2016 April | 2018 |
Partnumber | Hi3655 | |
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
Unisoc Tiger T310 vs Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G
2
Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 Plus
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8200
4
Samsung Exynos 9609 vs MediaTek Dimensity 810
5
HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus vs MediaTek Helio P65
7
Samsung Exynos 7884B vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 480
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 695
9
Unisoc SC9832E vs MediaTek Helio G70
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G Plus vs MediaTek Helio G88