Samsung Exynos 2400 vs Apple A14 Bionic
87
out 100
VS
71
out 100
Compared 2 processors: Samsung Exynos 2400, vs Apple A14 Bionic. 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 | 451893 | 310050 |
| GPU | 722765 | 323143 |
| Memory | 300546 | 173777 |
| UX | 290016 | 288345 |
| NanoReview Score | 1765220 | 1095315 |
| Stability | n/a | 69 % |
| Graphics Test | 83 fps | 45 fps |
| File Compression | 271 MB/s | 167 MB/s |
| HTML5 Browser | 207.8 pages/s | 105.5 pages/s |
| PDF Rendering | 220.5 MP/sec | 116.4 MP/sec |
| Background Blur | 21.8 frames/s | 17.6 frames/s |
| Photo Processing | 65.3 frames/s | 51.5 frames/s |
| Image Detection | 159.2 frames/s | 95.7 frames/s |
| HDR | 211.5 MP/sec | 147.6 MP/sec |
| Ray Tracing | 7.4 MP/sec | 5.18 MP/sec |
Processor
| Architecture | - 1x 3.21 GHz – Cortex-X4 - 2x 2.9 GHz – Cortex-A720 - 3x 2.6 GHz – Cortex-A720 - 4x 1.95 GHz – Cortex-A520 |
- 2x 3.1 GHz – Firestorm - 4x 1.8 GHz – Icestorm |
| Process | Samsung | TSMC |
| Cores count | 10 | 6 |
| Frequency | 3210 | 3100 |
| Instruction set | ARMv9.2-A | ARMv8.5-A |
| L1 cache | n/a | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | n/a | 8 MB |
| L3 Cache | 8 MB | n/a |
| Process tech. | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Transistor count | n/a | 11.8 billion |
| Power (TDP) | 6 W | 6 W |
Graphics
| GPU Model | Samsung Xclipse 940 | Apple A14 GPU |
| Architecture | Magellan (RDNA 3) | Apple Bionic GPU |
| GPU Frequency | 1095 MHz | 1278 MHz |
| Execution Units | 6 | 4 |
| Shader Units | 128 | 64 |
| Total shader | 768 | 256 |
| FLOPS | 3406.8 GFLOPS | 654.3 GFLOPS |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | n/a |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | n/a |
| DirectX | 12.1 | n/a |
AI Acceleration
| Artificial Intelligence | Yes | Apple Neural Engine |
| GPU Frequency | n/a | 11 TOPS |
Memory
| Memory Type | LPDDR5X | LPDDR4X |
| Memory Frequency | 4200 MHz | 2133 MHz |
| Bus | 4x16 bit | 4x16 bit |
| Bandwidth | 68.2 Gbit/s | 34.1 Gbit/s |
| Max RAM | 24 GB | 6 GB |
Multimedia
| Memory Type | - UFS 3.1 - UFS 4.0 |
NVMe |
| Max. resolution | 3840x2400 pixels | 2732x2048 pixels |
| Camera | 1x320 pixels | n/a |
| Video recording | 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS | 4K at 60FPS |
| Video quality | 8K at 60FPS, 4K at 120FPS | 4K at 60FPS |
| Video codecs | - H.264 - H.265 - AV1 - VP9 |
- H.264 - H.265 - Motion JPEG |
| Audio codecs | - AAC - AIFF - CAF - MP3 - MP4 - WAV |
- AAC - AAX - AAX+ - AC-3 - AIFF - CAF - E-AC-3 - MP3 - MP4 - WAV |
Connectivity
| Modem | Exynos 5300 | n/a |
| 4G Support | LTE Cat. 24 | LTE Cat. 18 |
| 5G Support | Yes | Yes |
| Download speed | Up to 9640 MB/s | Up to 7500 MB/s |
| Upload speed | Up to 2550 MB/s | Up to 2500 MB/s |
| Wi-Fi version | 7 | 6 |
| Bluetooth version | 5.4 | 5.0 |
| Navigation | - GPS - GLONASS - Beidou - Galileo - QZSS - NAVIC |
- GPS - GLONASS - Beidou - Galileo |
Other
| Announced | January, 2024 yr | September, 2020 yr |
| Class | Flagship | Flagship |
| Codename | S5E9945 | APL1W01 |
Results
After analyzing the data, we consider Samsung Exynos 2400 the clear winner in this comparison.
Survey
Total Votes: 0
