Skip to content
InnoReviews

Samsung Exynos 1610 vs Unisoc T616

S
—Inno Score
VS
U
21.3Inno Score
27.3CPU20.1
—GPU23.6
—Efficiencyspec-based20
4 spec wins — Samsung Exynos 16100 spec wins — Unisoc T616

InnoReviews verdict

No overall winner yet: Samsung Exynos 1610 lacks the published benchmark results an Inno Score requires, so there is no Inno Score to compare — we don't rank chips on their spec sheet alone. The spec table below still shows every difference we track.

Which would you pick?

Key differences

Reasons to pick the Samsung Exynos 1610

  • Stronger CPU score: 27 vs 20
  • 119% higher Geekbench 6 (single): 953 vs 435
  • 38% higher Geekbench 6 (multi): 2,144 vs 1,553
  • 20% higher Max clock: 2.4 GHz vs 2 GHz

Reasons to pick the Unisoc T616

No decisive spec advantages — this side competes on price and preference.

General

General comparison: Samsung Exynos 1610 versus Unisoc T616
SpecSamsung Exynos 1610Unisoc T616
Announced20262022
Process—12 nm
Architecture—Armv8.2

CPU

CPU comparison: Samsung Exynos 1610 versus Unisoc T616
SpecSamsung Exynos 1610Unisoc T616
Cores88
Core configuration2 + 62x2.0 GHz Cortex-A75 + 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55
Max clock2.4 GHz+20%2 GHz

GPU

GPU comparison: Samsung Exynos 1610 versus Unisoc T616
SpecSamsung Exynos 1610Unisoc T616
GPUMali-G68Arm Mali-G57 MP1
GPU clock—750 MHz

Memory

Memory comparison: Samsung Exynos 1610 versus Unisoc T616
SpecSamsung Exynos 1610Unisoc T616
Memory type—LPDDR4X-1866

Connectivity

Connectivity comparison: Samsung Exynos 1610 versus Unisoc T616
SpecSamsung Exynos 1610Unisoc T616
Modem—Integrated LTE Cat-7
Wi-FiWi-Fi 5Wi-Fi 5
Bluetooth5.35.0

Media

Media comparison: Samsung Exynos 1610 versus Unisoc T616
SpecSamsung Exynos 1610Unisoc T616
Max display—FHD+ @ 60Hz / HD+ @ 90Hz
Video capture—1080p@60fps

Benchmarks

Benchmarks comparison: Samsung Exynos 1610 versus Unisoc T616
SpecSamsung Exynos 1610Unisoc T616
Geekbench 6 (single)953+119%Bottom 43%435Bottom 16%
Geekbench 6 (multi)2,144+38%Bottom 37%1,553Bottom 17%
3DMark Wild Life Extreme—130Bottom 2%

Related comparisons

Try another matchup