Unisoc SC7731E vs Unisoc Tiger T700
The Unisoc SC7731E and Unisoc Tiger T700 processors are two distinct options with varying specifications. Let's compare them based on their CPU cores and architecture, number of cores, instruction set, lithography, and TDP.
Starting with the Unisoc SC7731E, it features a 4x 1.3 GHz Cortex-A7 architecture, indicating four cores with a clock speed of 1.3 GHz. It operates on the ARMv7-A instruction set and is built on a 28 nm lithography. The TDP, or thermal design power, is rated at 7 Watts.
On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T700 incorporates a more advanced architecture. It consists of 2x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A75 cores, offering higher performance, alongside 6x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A5 cores for efficient tasks. This results in a total of eight cores running at 1.8 GHz. The instruction set used is ARMv8.2-A, which is the latest version. The processor is built on a smaller and more efficient 12 nm lithography compared to the SC7731E. However, this increased performance and efficiency come at the cost of a higher TDP of 10 Watts.
In terms of a direct comparison, the Unisoc Tiger T700 stands out with its combination of powerful Cortex-A75 cores and energy-efficient Cortex-A5 cores. This offers an advantage in both performance and power consumption compared to the SC7731E, which utilizes four Cortex-A7 cores.
Furthermore, the Tiger T700's usage of the ARMv8.2-A instruction set suggests it supports more advanced features and optimizations compared to the ARMv7-A instruction set utilized by the SC7731E.
Additionally, the Tiger T700's smaller 12 nm lithography can result in better power efficiency and heat dissipation compared to the SC7731E's 28 nm lithography.
Overall, the Unisoc Tiger T700 emerges as the superior processor in terms of architectural capabilities, core configuration, instruction set, lithography, and power efficiency. However, it's important to consider other factors such as software optimization and specific use cases before making a final decision.
Starting with the Unisoc SC7731E, it features a 4x 1.3 GHz Cortex-A7 architecture, indicating four cores with a clock speed of 1.3 GHz. It operates on the ARMv7-A instruction set and is built on a 28 nm lithography. The TDP, or thermal design power, is rated at 7 Watts.
On the other hand, the Unisoc Tiger T700 incorporates a more advanced architecture. It consists of 2x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A75 cores, offering higher performance, alongside 6x 1.8 GHz Cortex-A5 cores for efficient tasks. This results in a total of eight cores running at 1.8 GHz. The instruction set used is ARMv8.2-A, which is the latest version. The processor is built on a smaller and more efficient 12 nm lithography compared to the SC7731E. However, this increased performance and efficiency come at the cost of a higher TDP of 10 Watts.
In terms of a direct comparison, the Unisoc Tiger T700 stands out with its combination of powerful Cortex-A75 cores and energy-efficient Cortex-A5 cores. This offers an advantage in both performance and power consumption compared to the SC7731E, which utilizes four Cortex-A7 cores.
Furthermore, the Tiger T700's usage of the ARMv8.2-A instruction set suggests it supports more advanced features and optimizations compared to the ARMv7-A instruction set utilized by the SC7731E.
Additionally, the Tiger T700's smaller 12 nm lithography can result in better power efficiency and heat dissipation compared to the SC7731E's 28 nm lithography.
Overall, the Unisoc Tiger T700 emerges as the superior processor in terms of architectural capabilities, core configuration, instruction set, lithography, and power efficiency. However, it's important to consider other factors such as software optimization and specific use cases before making a final decision.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
| Architecture | 4x 1.3 GHz – Cortex-A7 | 2x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A5 |
| Number of cores | 4 | 8 |
| Instruction Set | ARMv7-A | ARMv8.2-A |
| Lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| TDP | 7 Watt | 10 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
| Max amount | up to 1 GB | up to 4 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4X |
| Memory frequency | 533 MHz | 1866 MHz |
| Memory-bus | 2x16 bit |
Storage
| Storage specification | eMMC 5.1 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
| GPU name | Mali-T820 MP1 | Mali-G52 MP2 |
| GPU Architecture | Mali Midgard | Mali Bifrost |
| GPU frequency | 600 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Execution units | 1 | 2 |
| Shaders | 4 | 32 |
| DirectX | 11 | 11 |
| OpenCL API | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | ES 3.2 |
| Vulkan API | 1.0 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
| Max screen resolution | 1440x720 | 2400x1080 |
| Max camera resolution | 1x 8MP | 1x 48MP |
| Max Video Capture | HD@30fps | FullHD@60fps |
| Video codec support | H.264 (AVC) | H.264 (AVC) H.265 (HEVC) |
Wireless
| 4G network | Yes | Yes |
| 5G network | Yes | Yes |
| Peak Download Speed | 0.3 Gbps | |
| Peak Upload Speed | 0.1 Gbps | |
| Wi-Fi | 4 (802.11n) | 5 (802.11ac) |
| Bluetooth | 4.2 | 5.0 |
| Satellite navigation | BeiDou GPS GLONASS |
BeiDou GPS Galileo GLONASS |
Supplemental Information
| Launch Date | 2018 Quarter 2 | 2021 March |
| Partnumber | T700 | |
| Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
| Positioning | Low-end | Low-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
Samsung Exynos 2600 vs MediaTek Dimensity 7200
2
Samsung Exynos 1580 vs HiSilicon Kirin 990 4G
3
Samsung Exynos 990 vs MediaTek Dimensity 7350
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G vs HiSilicon Kirin 950
5
MediaTek Dimensity 1000 Plus vs HiSilicon Kirin 930
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Gen 4
7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 vs HiSilicon Kirin 659
8
MediaTek Dimensity 1000L vs MediaTek Helio G25
9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 vs Samsung Exynos 9825
10
MediaTek Helio G88 vs Samsung Exynos 7884B