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.
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 | Valhall | 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 |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 vs Unisoc Tiger T610
2
Samsung Exynos 9820 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1000
3
MediaTek Helio P60 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G
4
MediaTek Dimensity 1100 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 460
5
Unisoc Tanggula T770 5G vs MediaTek Dimensity 8000
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 vs MediaTek Dimensity 800
7
HiSilicon Kirin 980 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G
8
MediaTek Helio G96 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 678
9
HiSilicon Kirin 985 5G vs Samsung Exynos 1330
10
Google Tensor G1 vs HiSilicon Kirin 935