Skip to content
InnoReviews

Samsung Exynos 850 vs Unisoc T7225

Samsung Exynos 850
26.2Inno Score
VS
Unisoc T7225
—Inno Score
20CPU20
—GPU35
20Benchmarks—
46.7Efficiencyspec-based20
2 spec wins — Samsung Exynos 8501 spec wins — Unisoc T7225

InnoReviews verdict

No overall winner yet: Unisoc T7225 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 850

  • 33% lower process: 8 nm vs 12 nm
  • 11% higher Max clock: 2 GHz vs 1.8 GHz

Reasons to pick the Unisoc T7225

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

General

General comparison: Samsung Exynos 850 versus Unisoc T7225
SpecSamsung Exynos 850Unisoc T7225
Announced20202025
Process8 nm+33%12 nm
TDP (typical)4 W—
ArchitectureArmv8.2Armv8.2

CPU

CPU comparison: Samsung Exynos 850 versus Unisoc T7225
SpecSamsung Exynos 850Unisoc T7225
Cores88
Core configuration8x2.0 GHz Cortex-A552x1.8 GHz Cortex-A75 + 6x1.8 GHz Cortex-A55
Max clock2 GHz+11%1.8 GHz

GPU

GPU comparison: Samsung Exynos 850 versus Unisoc T7225
SpecSamsung Exynos 850Unisoc T7225
GPUArm Mali-G52 MP1Arm Mali-G57 MP1
GPU clock—650 MHz

Memory

Memory comparison: Samsung Exynos 850 versus Unisoc T7225
SpecSamsung Exynos 850Unisoc T7225
Memory typeLPDDR4X-1600LPDDR4X-1600
Max bandwidth12.8 GB/s—

Connectivity

Connectivity comparison: Samsung Exynos 850 versus Unisoc T7225
SpecSamsung Exynos 850Unisoc T7225
ModemIntegrated LTE Cat-7Integrated LTE Cat-7
Wi-FiWi-Fi 5Wi-Fi 5
Bluetooth5.05.2

Media

Media comparison: Samsung Exynos 850 versus Unisoc T7225
SpecSamsung Exynos 850Unisoc T7225
Max displayFHD+ @ 60HzFHD+ @ 60Hz / HD+ @ 90Hz
Video capture1080p@30fps1080p@60fps

Benchmarks

Benchmarks comparison: Samsung Exynos 850 versus Unisoc T7225
SpecSamsung Exynos 850Unisoc T7225
AnTuTu180,000—
Geekbench 6 (single)170Bottom 5%—
Geekbench 6 (multi)600Bottom 3%—

Related comparisons

Try another matchup