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.
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 | Midgard | 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 |
AnTuTu 10
Total Score
GeekBench 6 Single-Core
Score
GeekBench 6 Multi-Core
Score
Popular comparisons:
1
Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 1 vs Google Tensor G3
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 662 vs Apple A10 Fusion
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 vs HiSilicon Kirin 9000 5G
4
Samsung Exynos 990 vs MediaTek Helio P95
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 vs Samsung Exynos 7880
6
MediaTek Helio G85 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 865
7
MediaTek Dimensity 1080 vs MediaTek Dimensity 6020
8
Samsung Exynos 1380 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 730
9
Samsung Exynos 7884B vs MediaTek Helio G90T
10
Unisoc Tiger T618 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 888 Plus