HiSilicon Kirin 970 vs Unisoc Tiger T310
Based on the specifications, there are several key differences between the HiSilicon Kirin 970 and the Unisoc Tiger T310 processors.
First, let's talk about CPU cores and architecture. The Kirin 970 features an architecture of 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, totaling 8 cores. On the other hand, the Tiger T310 has an architecture of 1x 2 GHz Cortex-A75 core and 3x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores, totaling 4 cores. This difference in CPU cores and architecture indicates that the Kirin 970 may have better multitasking capabilities and overall performance compared to the Tiger T310.
In terms of instruction sets, the Kirin 970 supports ARMv8-A, while the Tiger T310 supports ARMv8.2-A. This suggests that the Tiger T310 might have better compatibility with newer software and applications that require ARMv8.2-A instruction set.
Moving on to lithography, the Kirin 970 has a lithography of 10 nm, while the Tiger T310 has a lithography of 12 nm. A lower lithography generally indicates a more power-efficient and potentially faster processor. Therefore, the Kirin 970 might have better power efficiency and potentially faster processing speeds compared to the Tiger T310.
Lastly, the Kirin 970 boasts a Neural Processing Unit (NPU) provided by HiSilicon, which enhances artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. The Tiger T310, on the other hand, does not mention any specific AI features. This means that the Kirin 970 might excel in tasks that require AI, such as facial recognition or language processing.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 970 and Unisoc Tiger T310 processors have several differences in their specifications. The Kirin 970 offers more CPU cores and a powerful architecture, better instruction set support, a lower lithography, and the inclusion of a dedicated NPU. These factors suggest that the Kirin 970 may outperform the Tiger T310 in terms of multitasking capabilities, compatibility with newer software, power efficiency, processing speed, and AI-related tasks.
First, let's talk about CPU cores and architecture. The Kirin 970 features an architecture of 4x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A73 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, totaling 8 cores. On the other hand, the Tiger T310 has an architecture of 1x 2 GHz Cortex-A75 core and 3x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores, totaling 4 cores. This difference in CPU cores and architecture indicates that the Kirin 970 may have better multitasking capabilities and overall performance compared to the Tiger T310.
In terms of instruction sets, the Kirin 970 supports ARMv8-A, while the Tiger T310 supports ARMv8.2-A. This suggests that the Tiger T310 might have better compatibility with newer software and applications that require ARMv8.2-A instruction set.
Moving on to lithography, the Kirin 970 has a lithography of 10 nm, while the Tiger T310 has a lithography of 12 nm. A lower lithography generally indicates a more power-efficient and potentially faster processor. Therefore, the Kirin 970 might have better power efficiency and potentially faster processing speeds compared to the Tiger T310.
Lastly, the Kirin 970 boasts a Neural Processing Unit (NPU) provided by HiSilicon, which enhances artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. The Tiger T310, on the other hand, does not mention any specific AI features. This means that the Kirin 970 might excel in tasks that require AI, such as facial recognition or language processing.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 970 and Unisoc Tiger T310 processors have several differences in their specifications. The Kirin 970 offers more CPU cores and a powerful architecture, better instruction set support, a lower lithography, and the inclusion of a dedicated NPU. These factors suggest that the Kirin 970 may outperform the Tiger T310 in terms of multitasking capabilities, compatibility with newer software, power efficiency, processing speed, and AI-related tasks.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
| Architecture | 4x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A73 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 | 10 nm | 12 nm |
| Number of transistors | 5500 million | |
| TDP | 9 Watt | |
| Neural Processing | HiSilicon NPU |
Memory (RAM)
| Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 4 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR4 | LPDDR4X |
| Memory frequency | 1866 MHz | 1333 MHz |
| Memory-bus | 4x16 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
| Storage specification | UFS 2.1 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
| GPU name | Mali-G72 MP12 | Imagination PowerVR GE8300 |
| GPU Architecture | Mali Bifrost | PowerVR Rogue |
| GPU frequency | 750 MHz | 660 MHz |
| Execution units | 12 | 2 |
| Shaders | 192 | 32 |
| DirectX | 12 | 10 |
| OpenCL API | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | |
| Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
| Max screen resolution | 2340x1080 | 1600x720 |
| Max camera resolution | 1x 48MP, 2x 20MP | 1x 16MP + 1x 8MP |
| Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | FullHD@30fps |
| Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
Wireless
| 4G network | Yes | Yes |
| 5G network | Yes | Yes |
| Peak Download Speed | 1.2 Gbps | 0.3 Gbps |
| Peak Upload Speed | 0.15 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 | 2017 September | 2019 April |
| Partnumber | Hi3670 | T310 |
| Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
| Positioning | Flagship | Low-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
Apple A16 Bionic vs MediaTek Dimensity 8350
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 4 vs MediaTek Dimensity 7025
3
Samsung Exynos 990 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1
4
Samsung Exynos 9825 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 3
5
MediaTek Dimensity 9300 Plus vs MediaTek Dimensity 9400 Plus
6
MediaTek Dimensity 8300 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7s Gen 4
7
MediaTek Dimensity 8400 vs Samsung Exynos 2400e
8
Google Tensor G4 vs HiSilicon Kirin 820 5G
9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 450 vs Samsung Exynos 1380
10
MediaTek Helio G80 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1000 Plus