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.
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 | Bifrost | 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 |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G vs MediaTek Dimensity 810
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 690
3
HiSilicon Kirin 960 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8200
4
MediaTek Dimensity 9000 Plus vs Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G
5
Samsung Exynos 7884B vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765
6
Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 695
7
HiSilicon Kirin 950 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1000L
8
Apple A10 Fusion vs Unisoc Tanggula T770 5G
9
Samsung Exynos 9810 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 1
10
MediaTek Helio G35 vs Samsung Exynos 9610