HiSilicon Kirin 980 vs Unisoc Tiger T700
When comparing the HiSilicon Kirin 980 and the Unisoc Tiger T700 processors, several key specifications stand out.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 980 boasts an architecture of 2x 2.6 GHz – Cortex-A76, 2x 1.92 GHz – Cortex-A76, and 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55, giving it a total of 8 cores. On the other hand, the Tiger T700 features an architecture of 2x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 and 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A5, resulting in the same number of cores as the Kirin 980.
In terms of instruction set, the Kirin 980 uses ARMv8-A, while the Tiger T700 utilizes ARMv8.2-A. This difference in instruction sets may impact the performance and compatibility of the processors with various applications and software.
Moving on to lithography, the Kirin 980 impresses with a 7 nm lithography, which indicates a more advanced manufacturing process. This translates to better power efficiency and potentially improved performance. In contrast, the Tiger T700 has a 12 nm lithography, which is less advanced than the Kirin 980.
The number of transistors is another notable specification. The Kirin 980 boasts 6900 million transistors, indicating a higher level of complexity and potentially better performance. However, the number of transistors for the Tiger T700 is not provided in the given information.
In terms of thermal design power (TDP), the Kirin 980 has a TDP of 6 Watt, while the Tiger T700 has a slightly higher TDP of 10 Watt. A lower TDP generally signifies better power efficiency.
Lastly, the Kirin 980 incorporates the HiSilicon Dual NPU for neural processing, providing enhanced capabilities for machine learning tasks. No information about neural processing is given for the Tiger T700.
In summary, the HiSilicon Kirin 980 outperforms the Unisoc Tiger T700 in several key areas, including lithography, transistor count, and neural processing capabilities. However, it is important to note that the overall performance and user experience also depend on various other factors such as software optimization, GPU, and memory.
Starting with the CPU cores and architecture, the Kirin 980 boasts an architecture of 2x 2.6 GHz – Cortex-A76, 2x 1.92 GHz – Cortex-A76, and 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55, giving it a total of 8 cores. On the other hand, the Tiger T700 features an architecture of 2x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 and 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A5, resulting in the same number of cores as the Kirin 980.
In terms of instruction set, the Kirin 980 uses ARMv8-A, while the Tiger T700 utilizes ARMv8.2-A. This difference in instruction sets may impact the performance and compatibility of the processors with various applications and software.
Moving on to lithography, the Kirin 980 impresses with a 7 nm lithography, which indicates a more advanced manufacturing process. This translates to better power efficiency and potentially improved performance. In contrast, the Tiger T700 has a 12 nm lithography, which is less advanced than the Kirin 980.
The number of transistors is another notable specification. The Kirin 980 boasts 6900 million transistors, indicating a higher level of complexity and potentially better performance. However, the number of transistors for the Tiger T700 is not provided in the given information.
In terms of thermal design power (TDP), the Kirin 980 has a TDP of 6 Watt, while the Tiger T700 has a slightly higher TDP of 10 Watt. A lower TDP generally signifies better power efficiency.
Lastly, the Kirin 980 incorporates the HiSilicon Dual NPU for neural processing, providing enhanced capabilities for machine learning tasks. No information about neural processing is given for the Tiger T700.
In summary, the HiSilicon Kirin 980 outperforms the Unisoc Tiger T700 in several key areas, including lithography, transistor count, and neural processing capabilities. However, it is important to note that the overall performance and user experience also depend on various other factors such as software optimization, GPU, and memory.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
| Architecture | 2x 2.6 GHz – Cortex-A76 2x 1.92 GHz – Cortex-A76 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
2x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A5 |
| Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
| Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8.2-A |
| Lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Number of transistors | 6900 million | |
| TDP | 6 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Neural Processing | HiSilicon Dual NPU |
Memory (RAM)
| Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 4 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR4X |
| Memory frequency | 2133 MHz | 1866 MHz |
| Memory-bus | 4x16 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
| Storage specification | UFS 2.1 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
| GPU name | Mali-G76 MP10 | Mali-G52 MP2 |
| GPU Architecture | Mali Bifrost | Mali Bifrost |
| GPU frequency | 720 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Execution units | 10 | 2 |
| Shaders | 160 | 32 |
| DirectX | 12 | 11 |
| OpenCL API | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | ES 3.2 |
| Vulkan API | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
| Max screen resolution | 3120x1440 | 2400x1080 |
| Max camera resolution | 1x 48MP, 2x 32MP | 1x 48MP |
| Max Video Capture | 4K@30fps | FullHD@60fps |
| Video codec support | AV1 H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) VP8 VP9 |
H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) |
Wireless
| 4G network | Yes | Yes |
| 5G network | Yes | Yes |
| Peak Download Speed | 1.4 Gbps | 0.3 Gbps |
| Peak Upload Speed | 0.2 Gbps | 0.1 Gbps |
| Wi-Fi | 6 (802.11ax) | 5 (802.11ac) |
| Bluetooth | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
| Launch Date | 2018 Quarter 4 | 2021 March |
| Partnumber | T700 | |
| Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
| Positioning | Flagship | Low-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
MediaTek Helio G96 vs Unisoc Tiger T615
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 425
3
MediaTek Dimensity 7200 vs Unisoc SC9863A
4
Samsung Exynos 1580 vs Google Tensor G4
5
Samsung Exynos 9609 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 710
6
MediaTek Dimensity 8200 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 6s Gen 4
7
Samsung Exynos 2400e vs MediaTek Helio G50
8
Apple A12 Bionic vs HiSilicon Kirin 9010
9
Samsung Exynos 8890 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9400 Plus
10
MediaTek Dimensity 7050 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Plus Gen 2