Unisoc SC9832E vs Unisoc Tiger T616
The Unisoc SC9832E and Unisoc Tiger T616 are two processors with distinct specifications. Let's compare them side by side.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the SC9832E features a quad-core setup, with each core clocked at 1.4 GHz using the Cortex-A53 architecture. On the other hand, the Tiger T616 boasts an octa-core configuration, combining two high-performing Cortex-A75 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz and six power-efficient Cortex-A55 cores running at 1.8 GHz. This disparity in core count and architecture allows the Tiger T616 to potentially handle more demanding tasks and processes.
Both processors utilize the ARMv8 instruction set, which is known for its advanced technology and compatibility with modern applications. However, the Tiger T616 further enhances performance with its support for ARMv8.2-A instruction set, possibly enabling it to efficiently execute complex tasks.
In terms of lithography, the SC9832E is manufactured using a 28 nm process, while the Tiger T616 is built on a more advanced 12 nm process. A smaller lithography generally implies better power efficiency and potentially improved overall performance.
Power consumption is an important consideration in processor selection. The SC9832E has a thermal design power (TDP) of 7 Watts, indicating relatively lower power consumption. In comparison, the Tiger T616 has a TDP of 10 Watts, suggesting slightly higher power requirements.
It is clear from the specifications that the Tiger T616 outperforms the SC9832E in several aspects. With its octa-core architecture, support for ARMv8.2-A instruction set, smaller lithography, and potentially increased power, it can handle more demanding tasks and offer improved efficiency. However, the SC9832E may still have its advantages, such as lower power consumption and potentially lower cost.
In conclusion, while both processors have their strengths, the Tiger T616 stands out as the more capable and advanced option, especially for users seeking optimal performance and efficiency. Ultimately, the choice between the two processors will depend on individual needs and considerations.
In terms of CPU cores and architecture, the SC9832E features a quad-core setup, with each core clocked at 1.4 GHz using the Cortex-A53 architecture. On the other hand, the Tiger T616 boasts an octa-core configuration, combining two high-performing Cortex-A75 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz and six power-efficient Cortex-A55 cores running at 1.8 GHz. This disparity in core count and architecture allows the Tiger T616 to potentially handle more demanding tasks and processes.
Both processors utilize the ARMv8 instruction set, which is known for its advanced technology and compatibility with modern applications. However, the Tiger T616 further enhances performance with its support for ARMv8.2-A instruction set, possibly enabling it to efficiently execute complex tasks.
In terms of lithography, the SC9832E is manufactured using a 28 nm process, while the Tiger T616 is built on a more advanced 12 nm process. A smaller lithography generally implies better power efficiency and potentially improved overall performance.
Power consumption is an important consideration in processor selection. The SC9832E has a thermal design power (TDP) of 7 Watts, indicating relatively lower power consumption. In comparison, the Tiger T616 has a TDP of 10 Watts, suggesting slightly higher power requirements.
It is clear from the specifications that the Tiger T616 outperforms the SC9832E in several aspects. With its octa-core architecture, support for ARMv8.2-A instruction set, smaller lithography, and potentially increased power, it can handle more demanding tasks and offer improved efficiency. However, the SC9832E may still have its advantages, such as lower power consumption and potentially lower cost.
In conclusion, while both processors have their strengths, the Tiger T616 stands out as the more capable and advanced option, especially for users seeking optimal performance and efficiency. Ultimately, the choice between the two processors will depend on individual needs and considerations.
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
CPU cores and architecture
| Architecture | 4x 1.4 GHz – Cortex-A53 | 2x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
| Number of cores | 4 | 8 |
| Instruction Set | ARMv8-A | ARMv8.2-A |
| Lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| TDP | 7 Watt | 10 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
| Max amount | up to 2 GB | up to 6 GB |
| Memory type | LPDDR3 | LPDDR4X |
| Memory frequency | 667 MHz | 1866 MHz |
| Memory-bus | 2x16 bit |
Storage
| Storage specification | eMMC 5.1 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
| GPU name | Mali-T820 MP1 | Mali-G57 MP1 |
| GPU Architecture | Mali Midgard | Mali Bifrost |
| GPU frequency | 680 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Execution units | 1 | 1 |
| Shaders | 4 | 16 |
| 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 13MP | 1x 64MP, 2x 32MP |
| Max Video Capture | FullHD@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 | 0.15 Gbps | 0.3 Gbps |
| Peak Upload Speed | 0.05 Gbps | 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 | 2021 |
| Partnumber | T616 | |
| Vertical Segment | Mobiles | Mobiles |
| Positioning | Low-end | Mid-end |
Popular comparisons:
1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 Plus vs Apple A15 Bionic
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 4 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 768G vs MediaTek Helio A25
4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1300
5
HiSilicon Kirin 960 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 662
6
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8200
7
Qualcomm Snapdragon 695 vs HiSilicon Kirin 9020
8
MediaTek Dimensity 7020 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 712
9
Apple M1 (iPad) vs Unisoc Tanggula T740 5G
10
Apple A14 Bionic vs HiSilicon Kirin 9010