|
MediaTek Kompanio 500 vs Samsung Exynos 9 Octa 8895 |
|
Comparisons 31-08-2022 Comprehensive comparison data of MediaTek Kompanio 500 vs Samsung Exynos 9 Octa 8895, testing of graphics chips (GPU). A step-by-step analysis of all the technical characteristics, to make it easier to read, is made by the table. From the comparison video, you can get the results of parallel examination in special test applications like Geekbench, 3DMark, GFXBench, AnTuTu, PCMark, Vellamo, Neocore, PassMark, Quadrant, and how good the chips are in games Madout2, Fortnite, Call of Duty, GTA, Minecraft, PUBG, Asphalt 9 etc. After looking at the data of parallel tests and videos, you already be able to understand which processors is better to buy MediaTek Kompanio 500 or Exynos 9 Octa 8895.
Summary benchmark resultsAs a percentage of the maximum value based on a sample from the entire base of all processors CPU Benchmark Based on Antutu and Geekbench scoreMediaTek Kompanio 500 | 14% |
Exynos 9 Octa 8895 | 12% |
Battery life test Power Consumption efficiency (how quickly the processor reduces the battery charge)MediaTek Kompanio 500 | 68% |
Exynos 9 Octa 8895 | 64% |
Gaming performance Which CPU is better for gamingMediaTek Kompanio 500 | 13% |
Exynos 9 Octa 8895 | 9% |
Antutu v10, 9Antutu benchmark separately tests the performance of the CPU, GPU, and memory speed | MediaTek Kompanio 500 |
Exynos 9 Octa 8895 | Total score | 195457 | 176074 | CPU | 54729 | 49309 | GPU | 74271 | 66905 | MEM | 31280 | 28174 | UX | 35190 | 31689 |
GeekBench 6, 5.2This benchmark shows Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance | MediaTek Kompanio 500 |
Exynos 9 Octa 8895 | Single-Core | 298 | 488 | Multi-Core | 1180 | 1515 |
Comparison of specifications
CPU and Memory | MediaTek Kompanio 500 |
Exynos 9 Octa 8895 | Frequency | 2000 MHz | 2300 MHz | Cores | 8 | 8 | Bit | 64 | 64 | Lithography | 12 nm | 10 nm | Transistors count | | | Core configuration | 4x2.0 GHz ARM Cortex-A73 4x1.6 GHz ARM Cortex-A53 | 4x2.3 GHz Exynos Mongoose 4x1.7 GHz ARM Cortex-A53 | Power consumption (TDP) | 5 W | 5 W | Memory type | LPDDR3, LPDDR4x | LPDDR4 | Max. Memory | 8 Gb | 4 Gb | Memory Frequency | 1600 | 1866 | Memory bandwidth | 18 | 29 | Neural Processor (NPU) | No | No | L1 cache | | 64 KB | L2 cache | | 2 MB | L3 cache | | | Instruction set architecture (ISA) | ARMv8.4-A | ARMv8-A | In this comparison block, you should pay attention to the differences in clock speed and the number of cores. Here Exynos 9 Octa 8895 is 13% better than MediaTek Kompanio 500 in terms of CPU frequency. Also keep in mind that high CPU frequency affects battery life through power consumption.
GPU and MediaGPU | Mali-G72 MP3 | Mali-G71 MP20 | GPU Frequency | 800 MHz | 546 MHz | GFloPS | 184 | 371.2 | # of Cores | 3 | 20 | # of Shader Units | | | Display | 2400 x 1080 pixels | 4096 x 2160 pixels | The frequency of the GPU does not always directly indicate its performance. To fully evaluate all the capabilities of a graphics chip, you should take into account the number of Shader Units and Cores, as well as how many GFlops it has.
Gaming benchmarkFortnite Mobile | | 23.9 | PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG Mobile) | 29.4 | 27.5 | Garena Free Fire - The Cobra | 54.3 | 58.8 | Call of Duty: Mobile | 30.1 | 30.2 | Grand Theft Auto V (GTA 5 Mobile) | 23.4 | 24.9 | Minecraft: Pocket Edition | 39.6 | 33.5 | Real Racing 3 | 108.5 | 73.5 | Sniper 3D | 86.9 | 94.1 | Need for Speed No Limits | 86.2 | 82.3 | Mortal Kombat X | 86.9 | 94.1 | CSR Racing 2 | 75.6 | 82.3 | The numbers in this table indicate the maximum FPS that was received on the device with the corresponding processor. Depending on the configuration of the gadget and graphics quality settings (Ultra, Medium, Normal), the results may differ quite significantly. We recommend that you better study the results of the Antutu v10, 9 and GeekBench 6, 5.2 becnmarks.
CamerasCamera resolution | 32 MP | 28 MP | Dual Camera resolution | 16 MP | 28 MP | Image Signal Processor (ISP) | | | Video Encoding FPS | 30 | 120 | Video Encoding resolution | FullHD | 4K (Ultra HD), 2K, FullHD | Codec support | H.264, H.265/HEVC | H.264, H.265/HEVC, VP9 |
Networks and NavigationModem | | LTE Cat.13/16 2/5 CA | Upload speed | | 50 MBit/s. | Navigation | Glonass L1OF, QZSS L1CA+ L5, NavIC, Galileo E1 + E5a, BeiDou B1I+ B2a, GPS L1CA+L5 | GPS, Glonass, Beidou | NFC support | No | No | 5G support | Yes | No |
Result:
The number of parameters for which MediaTek Kompanio 500 is better: 14
The number of parameters for which Samsung Exynos 9 Octa 8895 is better: 24 Please note that you do not need to blindly trust the software comparison of the table. It is better to just watch the full video of parallel comparison and listen to what people think who really appreciated the capabilities of both processors, and also read the test results on the links under the article.
MediaTek Kompanio 500 SoC Comparisons • Vs MediaTek Helio G70 • Vs Samsung Exynos 880 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 712 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 730 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 730G • Vs Unisoc Tiger T618 • Vs MediaTek Helio G80 • Vs Samsung Exynos 9810 • Vs MediaTek Dimensity 600 5G • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 678 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T612 • Vs MediaTek Helio G85 • Vs Samsung Exynos 980 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T7520 • Vs Unisoc T740 Tanggula • Vs Unisoc Tiger T7510 • Vs HiSilicon Kirin 810 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T710 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T700 • Vs MediaTek Helio G88 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 5G • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 • Vs Unisoc T760 Tanggula • Vs MediaTek Helio G90T • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SDM845 • Vs MediaTek Dimensity 700 • Vs MediaTek Helio G90 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 732G • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 710 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 662 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 MSM8998 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T610 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 675 • Vs MediaTek Helio P95 • Vs MediaTek Helio P65 (MT6768) • Vs MediaTek Helio P90 • Vs MediaTek Helio P60 • Vs HiSilicon Kirin 970 • Vs Samsung Exynos 9610 • Vs Samsung Exynos 9611 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T616 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 670 • Vs MediaTek Helio P70 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 MSM8996 Pro • Vs Samsung Exynos 9609 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 460 • Vs MediaTek Helio X30 (MT6799) • Vs Unisoc Tiger T606 • Vs Samsung Exynos 7 Octa 7885 • Vs HiSilicon Kirin 710A • Vs HiSilicon Kirin 710F • Vs HiSilicon Kirin 710 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 • Vs Samsung Exynos 8 Octa 8890 • Vs MediaTek Helio P40 • Vs Samsung Exynos 850 • Vs Qualcomm QCM2290 • Vs Qualcomm QCS8250 • Vs Qualcomm QCS4290 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7c • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7c Gen 2 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 850 • Vs MediaTek Helio G36 • Vs Unisoc SC9863A1 • Vs MediaTek MT6762VCB
Exynos 9 Octa 8895 SoC Comparisons • Vs Snapdragon 750G • Vs Helio P65 (MT6768) • Vs Exynos 7 Octa 7884 • Vs Tiger T310 • Vs Exynos 7 7904 • Vs Kirin 955 • Vs Snapdragon 660 MSM8976 Plus • Vs Exynos 850 • Vs Helio P40 • Vs Snapdragon 820 MSM8996 • Vs Kirin 710F • Vs Unisoc Tiger T710 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 460 • Vs HiSilicon Kirin 710A • Vs Samsung Exynos 8 Octa 8890 • Vs MediaTek Dimensity 600 5G • Vs MediaTek Helio G35 • Vs MediaTek Dimensity 800U • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 845 SDM845 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 480 5G • Vs Unisoc Tiger T610 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 678 • Vs MediaTek Dimensity 700 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8c • Vs MediaTek Helio G88 • Vs Unisoc T740 Tanggula • Vs Unisoc T760 Tanggula • Vs Unisoc Tiger T606 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T616 • Vs MediaTek Helio G37 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 • Vs Unisoc Tiger T612 • Vs Qualcomm QCS4290 • Vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 7c Gen 2
| |
|