HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G vs Unisoc SC9832E
The HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G and the Unisoc SC9832E are two processors with different specifications.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G, it boasts a more advanced architecture compared to the Unisoc SC9832E. The Kirin 985 5G features a combination of cores including 1x 2.58 GHz Cortex-A76, 3x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A76, and 4x 1.84 GHz Cortex-A55. This allows for improved performance and multitasking capabilities. In contrast, the Unisoc SC9832E only has 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, which are less powerful compared to the Kirin processor.
In terms of the number of cores, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G has 8 cores, providing more processing power and efficiency. On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E only has 4 cores, limiting its overall performance.
The instruction set used by both processors is different. The Kirin 985 5G utilizes ARMv8.2-A, which is a more recent and advanced instruction set, allowing for better compatibility with modern software and applications. The Unisoc SC9832E, on the other hand, uses ARMv8-A, which is a slightly older version of the instruction set.
In terms of lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G utilizes a more advanced 7 nm process, which means that it is more power-efficient and generates less heat compared to the Unisoc SC9832E's 28 nm lithography.
Regarding power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G has a lower TDP (thermal design power) of 6 watts compared to the Unisoc SC9832E's TDP of 7 watts. This means that the Kirin processor is more energy-efficient, leading to better battery life in devices that utilize it.
Additionally, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G comes with Neural Processing units, specifically the Ascend D110 Lite and Ascend D100 Tiny, providing enhanced AI processing capabilities. The Unisoc SC9832E does not have dedicated Neural Processing units.
In summary, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G outperforms the Unisoc SC9832E in terms of architecture, number of cores, instruction set, lithography, power consumption, and AI processing capabilities. However, it's important to note that the overall performance of a device depends on various factors including software optimization and other components used in conjunction with the processor.
Starting with the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G, it boasts a more advanced architecture compared to the Unisoc SC9832E. The Kirin 985 5G features a combination of cores including 1x 2.58 GHz Cortex-A76, 3x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A76, and 4x 1.84 GHz Cortex-A55. This allows for improved performance and multitasking capabilities. In contrast, the Unisoc SC9832E only has 4x 1.4 GHz Cortex-A53 cores, which are less powerful compared to the Kirin processor.
In terms of the number of cores, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G has 8 cores, providing more processing power and efficiency. On the other hand, the Unisoc SC9832E only has 4 cores, limiting its overall performance.
The instruction set used by both processors is different. The Kirin 985 5G utilizes ARMv8.2-A, which is a more recent and advanced instruction set, allowing for better compatibility with modern software and applications. The Unisoc SC9832E, on the other hand, uses ARMv8-A, which is a slightly older version of the instruction set.
In terms of lithography, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G utilizes a more advanced 7 nm process, which means that it is more power-efficient and generates less heat compared to the Unisoc SC9832E's 28 nm lithography.
Regarding power consumption, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G has a lower TDP (thermal design power) of 6 watts compared to the Unisoc SC9832E's TDP of 7 watts. This means that the Kirin processor is more energy-efficient, leading to better battery life in devices that utilize it.
Additionally, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G comes with Neural Processing units, specifically the Ascend D110 Lite and Ascend D100 Tiny, providing enhanced AI processing capabilities. The Unisoc SC9832E does not have dedicated Neural Processing units.
In summary, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G outperforms the Unisoc SC9832E in terms of architecture, number of cores, instruction set, lithography, power consumption, and AI processing capabilities. However, it's important to note that the overall performance of a device depends on various factors including software optimization and other components used in conjunction with the processor.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 1x 2.58 GHz – Cortex-A76 3x 2.4 GHz – Cortex-A76 4x 1.84 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
4x 1.4 GHz – Cortex-A53 |
Number of cores | 8 | 4 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv8-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 2 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR3 |
Memory frequency | 2133 MHz | 667 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 | Valhall | Midgard |
GPU frequency | 700 MHz | 680 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 13MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fp | FullHD@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 | 0.15 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.2 Gbps | 0.05 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 |
Partnumber | Hi6290 | |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Low-end |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
MediaTek Helio G96 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
3
MediaTek Helio G25 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 vs MediaTek Helio P90
5
MediaTek Dimensity 700 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 712
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 636 vs Samsung Exynos 1380
7
MediaTek Dimensity 9000 Plus vs MediaTek Helio G37
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 vs Unisoc Tanggula T770 5G
9
Unisoc Tiger T616 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 670
10
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 vs Apple A16 Bionic