Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 4 vs Samsung Exynos 2200
48
out 100
VS
63
out 100
Compared 2 processors: Qualcomm Snapdragon 6 Gen 4, vs Samsung Exynos 2200. Below are specs, tests, pros and cons for each device
Review
Processor Performance
Single-Core Benchmark Score
Gaming Performance
Graphics and OpenCL/Vulkan tests
Energy Efficiency
Chip Power Efficiency
Tests & specs
Specs & test comparisonBenchmarks
| CPU | 258336 | 316037 |
| GPU | 183669 | 424486 |
| Memory | 138904 | 170650 |
| UX | 176993 | 226015 |
| NanoReview Score | 757902 | 1137188 |
| Stability | n/a | 61 % |
| Graphics Test | n/a | 49 fps |
| File Compression | 154.3 MB/s | 151.9 MB/s |
| HTML5 Browser | 81.6 pages/s | 93.6 pages/s |
| PDF Rendering | 109.9 MP/sec | 106.3 MP/sec |
| Background Blur | 11.7 frames/s | 13.3 frames/s |
| Photo Processing | 25 frames/s | 27 frames/s |
| Image Detection | 55.8 frames/s | 92.5 frames/s |
| HDR | 93 MP/sec | 123.8 MP/sec |
| Ray Tracing | 4.14 MP/sec | 4.48 MP/sec |
Processor
| Architecture | - 1x 2.3 GHz – Kryo Prime (Cortex-A720) - 3x 2.2 GHz – Kryo Gold (Cortex-A720) - 4x 1.8 GHz – Kryo Silver (Cortex-A520) |
- 1x 2.8 GHz – Cortex-X2 - 3x 2.52 GHz – Cortex-A710 - 4x 1.82 GHz – Cortex-A510 |
| Process | TSMC | Samsung |
| Cores count | 8 | 8 |
| Frequency | 2300 | 2800 |
| Instruction set | ARMv9-A | ARMv9-A |
| L3 Cache | n/a | 4 MB |
| Process tech. | 4 nm | 4 nm |
| Power (TDP) | n/a | 7 W |
Graphics
| GPU Model | Adreno 810 | Samsung Xclipse 920 |
| Architecture | Adreno 800 | Voyager (RDNA 2) |
| GPU Frequency | 895 MHz | 1306 MHz |
| Execution Units | 2 | 3 |
| Shader Units | 128 | 128 |
| Total shader | 256 | 384 |
| FLOPS | 458.2 GFLOPS | 1003 GFLOPS |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.1 |
AI Acceleration
| Artificial Intelligence | Yes | Yes |
Memory
| Memory Type | LPDDR5 | LPDDR5 |
| Memory Frequency | 3200 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| Bus | 2x16 bit | 4x16 bit |
| Bandwidth | 25.6 Gbit/s | 51.2 Gbit/s |
| Max RAM | 16 GB | 24 GB |
Multimedia
| Memory Type | - UFS 2.2 - UFS 3.1 |
UFS 3.1 |
| Max. resolution | 3360x1600 pixels | 3840x2160 pixels |
| Camera | 1x200 pixels | 1x200 pixels |
| Video recording | 4K at 30FPS | 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS |
| Video quality | 4K at 30FPS | 8K at 60FPS, 4K at 240FPS |
| Video codecs | - H.264 - H.265 - VP9 |
- H.264 - H.265 - AV1 - VP9 |
| Audio codecs | - AAC - AIFF - CAF - MP3 - MP4 - WAV |
- AAC - AIFF - CAF - MP3 - MP4 - WAV |
Connectivity
| Modem | Qualcomm X62 5G | Exynos 5300 |
| 4G Support | LTE Cat. 18 | LTE Cat. 24 |
| 5G Support | Yes | Yes |
| Download speed | Up to 2900 MB/s | Up to 7350 MB/s |
| Upload speed | Up to 1600 MB/s | Up to 3670 MB/s |
| Wi-Fi version | 6 | 6 |
| Bluetooth version | 5.4 | 5.2 |
| Navigation | - GPS - GLONASS - Beidou - Galileo - QZSS - NAVIC |
- GPS - GLONASS - Beidou - Galileo - NAVIC |
Other
| Announced | February, 2025 yr | January, 2022 yr |
| Class | Mid-range | Flagship |
| Codename | SM6650 | S5E9925 |
Results
After analyzing the data, we consider Samsung Exynos 2200 the clear winner in this comparison.
Survey
Total Votes: 0
