HiSilicon Kirin 970 vs MediaTek Dimensity 700
When comparing the HiSilicon Kirin 970 and the MediaTek Dimensity 700 processors, several key specifications can help determine their performance and capabilities.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 970 features a combination of four Cortex-A73 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz and four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz. In contrast, the Dimensity 700 utilizes two Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 2 GHz. In terms of the number of cores, both processors contain eight cores.
Moving on to instruction sets, the Kirin 970 supports ARMv8-A, while the Dimensity 700 supports the newer ARMv8.2-A. This distinction implies that the Dimensity 700 may have more advanced instructions and features compared to the Kirin 970.
Regarding lithography, the Kirin 970 is built on a 10 nm manufacturing process, whereas the Dimensity 700 is manufactured using a more advanced 7 nm process. A smaller lithography generally translates to better power efficiency and potentially higher performance due to a smaller transistor size. Speaking of transistors, the Kirin 970 packs around 5500 million transistors, while no information is available for the Dimensity 700.
When it comes to power consumption, the Kirin 970 has a thermal design power (TDP) rating of 9 Watts, slightly lower than the Dimensity 700's TDP of 10 Watts. This suggests that the Kirin 970 may be slightly more power-efficient, although the difference may be negligible.
One additional feature worth noting is the HiSilicon NPU (Neural Processing Unit), which the Kirin 970 incorporates. This specialized unit enhances the processor's capabilities for artificial intelligence and machine learning tasks, potentially giving it an advantage in these areas.
In summary, while the Kirin 970 and the Dimensity 700 processors share similarities, such as the number of cores and instruction sets, there are key differences in their CPU architectures, lithography, and power consumption. These discrepancies may impact their overall performance, power efficiency, and suitability for certain tasks or applications.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 970 features a combination of four Cortex-A73 cores clocked at 2.4 GHz and four Cortex-A53 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz. In contrast, the Dimensity 700 utilizes two Cortex-A76 cores clocked at 2.2 GHz and six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 2 GHz. In terms of the number of cores, both processors contain eight cores.
Moving on to instruction sets, the Kirin 970 supports ARMv8-A, while the Dimensity 700 supports the newer ARMv8.2-A. This distinction implies that the Dimensity 700 may have more advanced instructions and features compared to the Kirin 970.
Regarding lithography, the Kirin 970 is built on a 10 nm manufacturing process, whereas the Dimensity 700 is manufactured using a more advanced 7 nm process. A smaller lithography generally translates to better power efficiency and potentially higher performance due to a smaller transistor size. Speaking of transistors, the Kirin 970 packs around 5500 million transistors, while no information is available for the Dimensity 700.
When it comes to power consumption, the Kirin 970 has a thermal design power (TDP) rating of 9 Watts, slightly lower than the Dimensity 700's TDP of 10 Watts. This suggests that the Kirin 970 may be slightly more power-efficient, although the difference may be negligible.
One additional feature worth noting is the HiSilicon NPU (Neural Processing Unit), which the Kirin 970 incorporates. This specialized unit enhances the processor's capabilities for artificial intelligence and machine learning tasks, potentially giving it an advantage in these areas.
In summary, while the Kirin 970 and the Dimensity 700 processors share similarities, such as the number of cores and instruction sets, there are key differences in their CPU architectures, lithography, and power consumption. These discrepancies may impact their overall performance, power efficiency, and suitability for certain tasks or applications.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 4x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A73 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
2x 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A76 6x 2 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 10 nm | 7 nm |
Number of transistors | 5500 million | |
TDP | 9 Watt | 10 Watt |
Neural Processing | HiSilicon NPU |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 12 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4 | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 1866 MHz | 2133 MHz |
Memory-bus | 4x16 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.2 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G72 MP12 | Mali-G57 MP2 |
GPU Architecture | Bifrost | Valhall |
GPU frequency | 750 MHz | 950 MHz |
Execution units | 12 | 2 |
Shaders | 192 | 32 |
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
OpenCL API | 2.0 | 2.1 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 2340x1080 | 2520x1080@90Hz |
Max camera resolution | 1x 48MP, 2x 20MP | 1x 64MP, 2x 16MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | 2K@30FPS |
Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP9 |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 1.2 Gbps | 2.77 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.15 Gbps | 1.2 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 5 (802.11ac) |
Bluetooth | 4.2 | 5.1 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS NavIC QZSS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2017 September | 2021 Quarter 1 |
Partnumber | Hi3670 | MT6833V/ZA, MT6833V/NZA |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Flagship | Mid-end |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Samsung Exynos 7870 vs Unisoc Tiger T616
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 1 vs Samsung Exynos 2200
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G vs MediaTek Helio G35
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 870 vs Unisoc SC7731E
5
Samsung Exynos 990 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Plus Gen 2
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 768G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 835
7
MediaTek Helio A25 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 670
8
Apple A11 Bionic vs Samsung Exynos 7420
9
MediaTek Helio G25 vs Samsung Exynos 9610
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2