Unisoc Tiger T612 vs Unisoc Tiger T616
The Unisoc Tiger T616 and T612 are two processors that share a similar architecture and specifications but differ in the clock speed of their CPU cores.
In terms of architecture, both the T616 and T612 processors feature a combination of Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A55 cores. They both operate on the advanced ARMv8.2-A instruction set and have a lithography of 12 nm. Additionally, both processors have a thermal design power (TDP) rating of 10 Watts, indicating their energy efficiency.
The main difference between the T616 and T612 processors lies in the clock speed of their CPU cores. The T616 features two Cortex-A75 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz, offering higher processing power for demanding tasks. It is accompanied by six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz, providing efficient performance for everyday tasks and reducing power consumption.
On the other hand, the T612 processor also includes two Cortex-A75 cores, but they are slightly slower with a clock speed of 1.8 GHz. The T612 also features six Cortex-A55 cores, like the T616, also clocked at 1.8 GHz.
Overall, the T616 surpasses the T612 in terms of raw processing power due to its higher clock speed for the two Cortex-A75 cores. This makes the T616 a better choice for applications that require a significant amount of processing power, such as gaming or resource-intensive multitasking.
However, for less demanding tasks like web browsing, social media, or watching videos, the T612 should still provide a satisfactory user experience thanks to its efficient performance and energy-saving design. Additionally, both processors share the same architecture and lithography, ensuring a similar level of performance and power efficiency.
In conclusion, while the Unisoc Tiger T616 and T612 processors have many similarities in terms of architecture, instruction set, lithography, and power consumption, the T616 edges ahead with its higher clock speed for the Cortex-A75 cores, making it a superior choice for more demanding tasks.
In terms of architecture, both the T616 and T612 processors feature a combination of Cortex-A75 and Cortex-A55 cores. They both operate on the advanced ARMv8.2-A instruction set and have a lithography of 12 nm. Additionally, both processors have a thermal design power (TDP) rating of 10 Watts, indicating their energy efficiency.
The main difference between the T616 and T612 processors lies in the clock speed of their CPU cores. The T616 features two Cortex-A75 cores clocked at 2.0 GHz, offering higher processing power for demanding tasks. It is accompanied by six Cortex-A55 cores clocked at 1.8 GHz, providing efficient performance for everyday tasks and reducing power consumption.
On the other hand, the T612 processor also includes two Cortex-A75 cores, but they are slightly slower with a clock speed of 1.8 GHz. The T612 also features six Cortex-A55 cores, like the T616, also clocked at 1.8 GHz.
Overall, the T616 surpasses the T612 in terms of raw processing power due to its higher clock speed for the two Cortex-A75 cores. This makes the T616 a better choice for applications that require a significant amount of processing power, such as gaming or resource-intensive multitasking.
However, for less demanding tasks like web browsing, social media, or watching videos, the T612 should still provide a satisfactory user experience thanks to its efficient performance and energy-saving design. Additionally, both processors share the same architecture and lithography, ensuring a similar level of performance and power efficiency.
In conclusion, while the Unisoc Tiger T616 and T612 processors have many similarities in terms of architecture, instruction set, lithography, and power consumption, the T616 edges ahead with its higher clock speed for the Cortex-A75 cores, making it a superior choice for more demanding tasks.
CPU cores and architecture
Architecture | 2x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
2x 2.0 GHz – Cortex-A75 6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55 |
Number of cores | 8 | 8 |
Instruction Set | ARMv8.2-A | ARMv8.2-A |
Lithography | 12 nm | 12 nm |
TDP | 10 Watt | 10 Watt |
Memory (RAM)
Max amount | up to 8 GB | up to 6 GB |
Memory type | LPDDR4X | LPDDR4X |
Memory frequency | 1600 MHz | 1866 MHz |
Memory-bus | 2x16 bit | 2x16 bit |
Storage
Storage specification | UFS 2.2 | UFS 2.1 |
Graphics
GPU name | Mali-G57 MP1 | Mali-G57 MP1 |
GPU Architecture | Valhall | Bifrost |
GPU frequency | 650 MHz | 750 MHz |
Execution units | 1 | 1 |
Shaders | 16 | 16 |
DirectX | 12 | 11 |
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 | 2400x1080 | 2400x1080 |
Max camera resolution | 1x 50MP | 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 | 2022 January | 2021 |
Partnumber | T612 | T616 |
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
HiSilicon Kirin 990 4G vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 Gen 1
2
MediaTek Helio G95 vs Samsung Exynos 1380
3
HiSilicon Kirin 950 vs HiSilicon Kirin 9000E 5G
4
Samsung Exynos 2200 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 765G
5
MediaTek Dimensity 1200 vs MediaTek Dimensity 930
6
MediaTek Helio G90 vs MediaTek Dimensity 1300
7
MediaTek Dimensity 800 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8020
8
MediaTek Helio P70 vs MediaTek Dimensity 8100
9
Samsung Exynos 8890 vs HiSilicon Kirin 980
10
HiSilicon Kirin 970 vs Samsung Exynos 9611