HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G vs Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G
When comparing the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G and the Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G processors, several key specifications should be taken into consideration.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G boasts a more diverse setup. It includes 1x 2.58 GHz Cortex-A76 core, 3x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A76 cores, and 4x 1.84 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G features 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores.
Both processors have 8 cores in total, but the Kirin 985 5G has a higher clock speed on its highest-performing Cortex-A76 core. This could potentially result in better performance under heavy workloads for the Kirin processor.
In terms of instruction sets, both processors support ARMv8.2-A, ensuring compatibility with the latest software and optimizations.
There is a slight difference in lithography between the two processors. The Kirin 985 5G utilizes a 7 nm process, while the Tanggula T760 5G employs a 6 nm process. A smaller lithography generally translates to better power efficiency and potentially improved performance.
In terms of power consumption, the Tanggula T760 5G has a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 5 watts compared to the 6 watts of the Kirin 985 5G. A lower TDP indicates that the Unisoc processor may consume less power and generate less heat.
Lastly, when comparing neural processing capabilities, the Kirin 985 5G utilizes the Ascend D110 Lite and Ascend D100 Tiny technologies based on the HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture. The Tanggula T760 5G, on the other hand, features its own Neural Processing Unit (NPU). The specific features and performance of these NPUs would need to be compared separately to assess their effectiveness.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G processor excels in terms of its CPU core diversity and potentially higher performance under heavy workloads. The Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G, on the other hand, offers a slightly smaller lithography and a lower TDP, indicating better power efficiency. The specific neural processing capabilities of each processor would require further investigation to determine their respective advantages.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G boasts a more diverse setup. It includes 1x 2.58 GHz Cortex-A76 core, 3x 2.4 GHz Cortex-A76 cores, and 4x 1.84 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. On the other hand, the Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G features 4x 2.2 GHz Cortex-A76 cores and 4x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores.
Both processors have 8 cores in total, but the Kirin 985 5G has a higher clock speed on its highest-performing Cortex-A76 core. This could potentially result in better performance under heavy workloads for the Kirin processor.
In terms of instruction sets, both processors support ARMv8.2-A, ensuring compatibility with the latest software and optimizations.
There is a slight difference in lithography between the two processors. The Kirin 985 5G utilizes a 7 nm process, while the Tanggula T760 5G employs a 6 nm process. A smaller lithography generally translates to better power efficiency and potentially improved performance.
In terms of power consumption, the Tanggula T760 5G has a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 5 watts compared to the 6 watts of the Kirin 985 5G. A lower TDP indicates that the Unisoc processor may consume less power and generate less heat.
Lastly, when comparing neural processing capabilities, the Kirin 985 5G utilizes the Ascend D110 Lite and Ascend D100 Tiny technologies based on the HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture. The Tanggula T760 5G, on the other hand, features its own Neural Processing Unit (NPU). The specific features and performance of these NPUs would need to be compared separately to assess their effectiveness.
In conclusion, the HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G processor excels in terms of its CPU core diversity and potentially higher performance under heavy workloads. The Unisoc Tanggula T760 5G, on the other hand, offers a slightly smaller lithography and a lower TDP, indicating better power efficiency. The specific neural processing capabilities of each processor would require further investigation to determine their respective advantages.
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 2.2 GHz – Cortex-A76 4x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 7 nm | 6 nm |
TDP | 6 Watt | 5 Watt |
Neural Processing | Ascend D110 Lite + Ascend D100 Tiny, HUAWEI Da Vinci Architecture | NPU |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 12 GB | up to 16 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 2133 MHz | 2133 MHz |
Memory-bus | 4x16 bit | 4x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 3.0 | UFS 3.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G77 MP8 | Mali-G57 MP6 |
GPU Architecture | Mali Valhall | Mali Valhall |
GPU frequency | 700 MHz | 850 MHz |
Execution units | 8 | 6 |
Shaders | 128 | 96 |
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
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 | 2160x1080 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 48MP, 2x 20MP | 1x 64MP, 2x 24MP |
Max Video Capture | 4K@30fp | FullHD@30fps |
Video codec support | 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 | 2.7 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.2 Gbps | 1.5 Gbps |
Wi-Fi | 5 (802.11ac) | 5 (802.11ac) |
Bluetooth | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
Launch Date | 2020 Quarter 2 | 2021 February |
Partnumber | Hi6290 | T760 |
Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
Positioning | Mid-end | Mid-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
MediaTek Dimensity 9400 Plus vs Samsung Exynos 2400e
2
MediaTek Dimensity 930 vs Samsung Exynos 850
3
MediaTek Dimensity 800 vs MediaTek Helio G80
4
Google Tensor G2 vs Samsung Exynos 2100
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 Plus vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 685
6
Samsung Exynos 8890 vs Samsung Exynos 9610
7
Samsung Exynos 7880 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1080
8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite 2 vs Unisoc Tiger T615
9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 625 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1000L
10
HiSilicon Kirin 960 vs Unisoc Tiger T606