Unisoc Tiger T310 vs Unisoc Tiger T616
The Unisoc Tiger T310 and T616 are both processors that cater to different needs and requirements. Let's compare these two processors based on their specifications.
The Unisoc Tiger T310 features a quad-core configuration with an architecture comprising one 2 GHz Cortex-A75 core and three 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. In contrast, the Unisoc Tiger T616 is equipped with an octa-core configuration and consists of two 2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and six 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This means that the T616 offers more power and efficiency compared to the T310. With more cores enabled, the T616 can handle multiple tasks simultaneously, resulting in better multitasking capabilities.
Both processors support the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern software and applications. Additionally, they share the same 12 nm lithography, which contributes to energy efficiency and reduced heat production. However, the T616 has a specific thermal design power (TDP) rating of 10 watts, indicating its ability to operate within a lower power consumption range. This makes it a suitable choice for applications requiring a balance between performance and energy efficiency.
While the T310 is a capable processor with its quad-core configuration, the T616 outperforms it in terms of overall processing power and energy efficiency with its octa-core configuration and lower TDP. Therefore, if you require a processor for intensive multitasking or power-hungry applications, the T616 would be the preferable choice.
In conclusion, the Unisoc Tiger T616 surpasses the T310 in terms of performance and power efficiency with its octa-core configuration and lower TDP. The T616 is an ideal choice for users seeking a processor that can deliver superior multitasking capabilities and energy efficiency, while the T310 is a suitable option for less demanding tasks. Ultimately, the choice between these two processors will depend on the specific requirements and use cases of the user.
The Unisoc Tiger T310 features a quad-core configuration with an architecture comprising one 2 GHz Cortex-A75 core and three 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. In contrast, the Unisoc Tiger T616 is equipped with an octa-core configuration and consists of two 2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 cores and six 1.8 GHz Cortex-A55 cores. This means that the T616 offers more power and efficiency compared to the T310. With more cores enabled, the T616 can handle multiple tasks simultaneously, resulting in better multitasking capabilities.
Both processors support the ARMv8.2-A instruction set, ensuring compatibility with modern software and applications. Additionally, they share the same 12 nm lithography, which contributes to energy efficiency and reduced heat production. However, the T616 has a specific thermal design power (TDP) rating of 10 watts, indicating its ability to operate within a lower power consumption range. This makes it a suitable choice for applications requiring a balance between performance and energy efficiency.
While the T310 is a capable processor with its quad-core configuration, the T616 outperforms it in terms of overall processing power and energy efficiency with its octa-core configuration and lower TDP. Therefore, if you require a processor for intensive multitasking or power-hungry applications, the T616 would be the preferable choice.
In conclusion, the Unisoc Tiger T616 surpasses the T310 in terms of performance and power efficiency with its octa-core configuration and lower TDP. The T616 is an ideal choice for users seeking a processor that can deliver superior multitasking capabilities and energy efficiency, while the T310 is a suitable option for less demanding tasks. Ultimately, the choice between these two processors will depend on the specific requirements and use cases of the user.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 1x 2 GHz – Cortex-A75 3x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
2x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 4 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 12 nm | 12 nm |
TDP | 10 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 4 GB | up to 6 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 1333 MHz | 1866 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x16 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | eMMC 5.1 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Imagination PowerVR GE8300 | Mali-G57 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Rogue | Bifrost |
GPU frequency | 660 MHz | 750 MHz |
Execution units | 2 | 1 |
Shaders | 32 | 16 |
DirectX | 10 | 11 |
OpenCL API | 3.0 | 2.1 |
OpenGL API | ES 3.2 | ES 3.2 |
Vulkan API | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Camera, Video, Display
Max screen resolution | 1600x720 | 2400x1080 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 16MP + 1x 8MP | 1x 64MP, 2x 32MP |
Max Video Capture | FullHD@30fps | FullHD@60fps |
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 | 0.3 Gbps | 0.3 Gbps |
Peak Upload Speed | 0.1 Gbps | 0.1 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 | 2019 April | 2021 |
Partnumber | T310 | 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
MediaTek Helio P90 vs Samsung Exynos 9610
2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 vs MediaTek Dimensity 9000
3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7 Plus Gen 2
4
MediaTek Dimensity 820 vs Samsung Exynos 9820
5
Qualcomm Snapdragon 670 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1100
6
MediaTek Dimensity 920 vs MediaTek Dimensity 900
7
Samsung Exynos 8895 vs Apple A15 Bionic
8
Apple A12 Bionic vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 888
9
Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 1 vs MediaTek Helio G95
10
MediaTek Helio P60 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 778G Plus