HiSilicon Kirin 980 vs Unisoc SC9832E
The HiSilicon Kirin 980 and the Unisoc SC9832E are two processors that differ significantly in terms of their specifications.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 980, it boasts an impressive architecture that includes 2x 2.6 GHz Cortex-A76 cores, 2x 1.92 GHz Cortex-A76 cores, and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This octa-core processor provides a powerful performance by utilizing different cores for different tasks. It operates on the ARMv8-A instruction set and has a lithography of 7 nm, indicating advanced fabrication technology that enhances efficiency and power consumption. With 6900 million transistors, the Kirin 980 can handle complex tasks and processes. Additionally, it has a low TDP (thermal design power) of 6 Watts, which helps to minimize heat generation and power consumption. The HiSilicon Dual NPU (Neural Processing Unit) further enhances its capabilities by enabling efficient and fast AI processing.
In contrast, the Unisoc SC9832E has a different configuration. It features a quad-core architecture with 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. Although it has fewer cores compared to the Kirin 980, it still delivers sufficient performance for many everyday tasks. The SC9832E also operates on the ARMv8-A instruction set but has a larger lithography of 28 nm, indicating a less advanced manufacturing process. With a TDP of 7 Watts, it consumes slightly more power than the Kirin 980.
In summary, while both processors have their own specifications, the HiSilicon Kirin 980 stands out with its more powerful and efficient architecture. With its octa-core design, advanced 7 nm lithography, and HiSilicon Dual NPU, it offers superior performance and AI capabilities compared to the Unisoc SC9832E. However, it is important to consider the specific requirements and use cases before determining the most suitable processor for a given device or application.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 980, it boasts an impressive architecture that includes 2x 2.6 GHz Cortex-A76 cores, 2x 1.92 GHz Cortex-A76 cores, and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This octa-core processor provides a powerful performance by utilizing different cores for different tasks. It operates on the ARMv8-A instruction set and has a lithography of 7 nm, indicating advanced fabrication technology that enhances efficiency and power consumption. With 6900 million transistors, the Kirin 980 can handle complex tasks and processes. Additionally, it has a low TDP (thermal design power) of 6 Watts, which helps to minimize heat generation and power consumption. The HiSilicon Dual NPU (Neural Processing Unit) further enhances its capabilities by enabling efficient and fast AI processing.
In contrast, the Unisoc SC9832E has a different configuration. It features a quad-core architecture with 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores. Although it has fewer cores compared to the Kirin 980, it still delivers sufficient performance for many everyday tasks. The SC9832E also operates on the ARMv8-A instruction set but has a larger lithography of 28 nm, indicating a less advanced manufacturing process. With a TDP of 7 Watts, it consumes slightly more power than the Kirin 980.
In summary, while both processors have their own specifications, the HiSilicon Kirin 980 stands out with its more powerful and efficient architecture. With its octa-core design, advanced 7 nm lithography, and HiSilicon Dual NPU, it offers superior performance and AI capabilities compared to the Unisoc SC9832E. However, it is important to consider the specific requirements and use cases before determining the most suitable processor for a given device or application.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 2x 2.6 GHz – Cortex-A76 2x 1.92 GHz – Cortex-A76 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
4x 1.4 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8-A |
Lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
Number of transistors | 6900 million | |
TDP | 6 Watt | 7 Watt |
Neural Processing | HiSilicon Dual NPU |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 2 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR3 |
Memory frequency | 2133 MHz | 667 MHz |
Memory-bus | 4x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.1 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G76 MP10 | Mali-T820 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Bifrost | Midgard |
GPU frequency | 720 MHz | 680 MHz |
Execution units | 10 | 1 |
Shaders | 160 | 4 |
DirectX | 12 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 2.1 | 1.2 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | ES 3.2 |
Vulkan API | 1.2 | 1.0 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 3120x1440 | 1440x720 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 48MP, 2x 32MP | 1x 13MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | FullHD@30fps |
Video codec support | AV1 H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) |
Wireless
4G network | Yes | Yes |
5G network | Yes | Yes |
Peak Download Speed | 1.4 Gbps | 0.15 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.2 Gbps | 0.05 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 6 (802.11ax) | 4 (802.11n) |
Bluetooth | 5.0 | 4.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2018 Quarter 4 | 2018 |
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
MediaTek Helio G25 vs Samsung Exynos 9610
2
MediaTek Helio P60 vs Apple A10 Fusion
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 690 vs Google Tensor G2
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 vs Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G
5
Samsung Exynos 9825 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 768G vs MediaTek Helio G90T
7
HiSilicon Kirin 820 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 695
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 685 vs MediaTek Helio G90
9
HiSilicon Kirin 960 vs Samsung Exynos 7904
10
HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G vs Samsung Exynos 8895