HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G vs Unisoc SC7731E
The HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G and Unisoc SC7731E are two processors with distinctive specifications.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G, it features an advanced architecture comprising of 1x 2.58 GHz Cortex-A76, 3x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A76, and 4x 1.84 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This octa-core setup allows for efficient multitasking and enhanced performance. It operates on the ARMv8.2-A instruction set and boasts a 7 nm lithography, contributing to improved power efficiency. With a TDP of 6 watts, it offers a decent balance between power consumption and performance. Additionally, the neural processing capabilities of the Kirin 985 5G are enhanced by the Ascend D110 Lite and Ascend D100 Tiny, both based on HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture.
In contrast, the Unisoc SC7731E processor employs a simpler architecture consisting of 4x 1.3 GHz Cortex-A7 cores. While not as powerful as the Kirin 985 5G, these cores still provide decent processing capabilities for day-to-day tasks. It uses the ARMv7-A instruction set and operates on a 28 nm lithography, which may result in higher power consumption compared to the Kirin 985 5G. The TDP of the SC7731E is 7 watts, slightly higher than that of the Kirin 985 5G.
Overall, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G outshines the Unisoc SC7731E in terms of performance and power efficiency. The Kirin 985 5G's octa-core arrangement, advanced architecture, and smaller lithography enable it to handle demanding tasks more efficiently. On the other hand, the SC7731E's quad-core setup, lower-end architecture, and larger lithography make it more suitable for basic tasks and less power-efficient than the Kirin 985 5G. Therefore, if high performance and power efficiency are the top priorities, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G is the preferred choice. However, if budget constraints limit the options, the Unisoc SC7731E still offers a decent level of performance for everyday use.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G, it features an advanced architecture comprising of 1x 2.58 GHz Cortex-A76, 3x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A76, and 4x 1.84 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This octa-core setup allows for efficient multitasking and enhanced performance. It operates on the ARMv8.2-A instruction set and boasts a 7 nm lithography, contributing to improved power efficiency. With a TDP of 6 watts, it offers a decent balance between power consumption and performance. Additionally, the neural processing capabilities of the Kirin 985 5G are enhanced by the Ascend D110 Lite and Ascend D100 Tiny, both based on HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture.
In contrast, the Unisoc SC7731E processor employs a simpler architecture consisting of 4x 1.3 GHz Cortex-A7 cores. While not as powerful as the Kirin 985 5G, these cores still provide decent processing capabilities for day-to-day tasks. It uses the ARMv7-A instruction set and operates on a 28 nm lithography, which may result in higher power consumption compared to the Kirin 985 5G. The TDP of the SC7731E is 7 watts, slightly higher than that of the Kirin 985 5G.
Overall, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G outshines the Unisoc SC7731E in terms of performance and power efficiency. The Kirin 985 5G's octa-core arrangement, advanced architecture, and smaller lithography enable it to handle demanding tasks more efficiently. On the other hand, the SC7731E's quad-core setup, lower-end architecture, and larger lithography make it more suitable for basic tasks and less power-efficient than the Kirin 985 5G. Therefore, if high performance and power efficiency are the top priorities, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G is the preferred choice. However, if budget constraints limit the options, the Unisoc SC7731E still offers a decent level of performance for everyday use.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 1x 2.58 GHz – Cortex-A76 3x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A76 4x 1.84 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
4x 1.3 GHz – Cortex-A7 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv7-A |
Lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
TDP | 6 Watt | 7 Watt |
Neural Processing | Ascend D110 Lite + Ascend D100 Tiny, HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 12 GB | up to 1 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR3 |
Memory frequency | 2133 MHz | 533 MHz |
Memory-bus | 4x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 3.0 | eMMC 5.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G77 MP8 | Mali-T820 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Mali Valhall | Mali Midgard |
GPU frequency | 700 MHz | 600 MHz |
Execution units | 8 | 1 |
Shaders | 128 | 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 20MP | 1x 8MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fp | HD@30fps |
Video codec support | 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 | |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.2 Gbps | |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 4 (802.11n) |
Bluetooth | 5.0 | 4.2 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2020 Quarter 2 | 2018 Quarter 2 |
Partnumber | Hi6290 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Low-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9000 Plus
2
Samsung Exynos 2200 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765
3
Samsung Exynos 9810 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 835
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8400
5
MediaTek Dimensity 700 vs Google Tensor G5
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 vs Apple A14 Bionic
7
Apple A16 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G
8
HiSilicon Kirin 990 5G vs MediaTek Helio G200
9
MediaTek Dimensity 6400 vs MediaTek MT6739
10
Google Tensor G3 vs Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G