FR
MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 vs Samsung Exynos 850
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 on one side and the Samsung Exynos 850 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the smartphone sector, It has 8 cores, 8 threads, a maximum frequency of 2.3GHz. The second is used on the smartphone segment, it has a total of 8 cores, 8 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 2.0 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specifications:
| Processor | MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 | Samsung Exynos 850 | ||||||
| Market (main) | Smartphone | Smartphone | ||||||
| ISA | ARMv8-A (64-bit) | ARMv8.2-A (64-bit) | ||||||
| Microarchitecture | Cortex-A53 | Cortex-A55 | ||||||
| Family | Helio P | Exynos 800 | ||||||
| Part number(s), S-Spec | MT6765 | Exynos 850 | ||||||
| Release date | Q1 2019 | Q2 2020 | ||||||
| Lithography | 12 nm HPM | 8 nm LPP | ||||||
| Cores | 8 | 8 | ||||||
| Threads | 8 | 8 | ||||||
| Base frequency | 2.3 GHz | 2.0 GHz | ||||||
| Turbo frequency | - | - | ||||||
| High performance cores | 8x ARM Cortex-A53 @ 2.3 GHz | 8x ARM Cortex-A55 @ 2.0 GHz | ||||||
| Cache memory | 2 MB | 2 MB | ||||||
| Max memory capacity | 6 GB | 8 GB | ||||||
| Memory types | LPDDR4X-1600 | LPDDR4X | ||||||
| Max # of memory channels | 2 | 4 | ||||||
| TDP | 5 W | 7 W | ||||||
| GPU integrated graphics | Imagination PowerVR GE8320 | ARM Mali-G52 MP6 | ||||||
| GPU execution units | 2 | 6 | ||||||
| GPU shading units | 64 | 96 | ||||||
| GPU base clock | 680 MHz | - | ||||||
| GPU boost clock | 680 MHz | 820 MHz | ||||||
| GPU FP32 floating point | 41.6 GFLOPS | 157.4 GFLOPS | ||||||
| Socket | SoC | SoC | ||||||
| AnTuTu | 86,660 | 124,990 | ||||||
| (Android 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core | 909 | 970 | ||||||
| (Android 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core | 3,788 | 4,656 | ||||||
| (SGEMM) GFLOPS performance | 24.1 GFLOPS | 38.2 GFLOPS | ||||||
| (Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio | 758 pts / W | 665 pts / W | ||||||
| Amazon |  |
|
||||||
| eBay |  |
|
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
We see that the two processors have an equivalent number of cores, the maximum frequency of MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 is greater, that the PDT of MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 is lower. The Samsung Exynos 850 was started more recently.
Performances :
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.
| AnTuTu - Total score | |
|---|---|
Samsung Exynos 850 |
124,990 |
| MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 |
86,660 |
The difference is 44%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
AnTuTu is one of the most popular apps in the world to evaluate and compare the power of a mobile device with the competition. It tests above all the power of calculation, the display of Web pages, the modeling of decorations in 3D, the management of the memory, the transfer of data.
On Android 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-core & single core score - Android 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| Samsung Exynos 850 |
970 4,656 |
| MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 |
909 3,788 |
In single core, the difference is 7%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 23%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
Equivalence:
MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 Intel equivalentMediaTek MT6765 Helio P35 AMD equivalentSamsung Exynos 850 Intel equivalentSamsung Exynos 850 AMD equivalentSmartphones with the processor MediaTek MT6765 Helio P35:
Honor 8A 2020Honor Play 8AHuawei Y6s (2019)Infinix Note 6Infinix S5 ProLG K51SLG K52LG K61LG K71LG Stylo 6Motorola Moto G8 Power LiteOppo A11kOppo A12Oppo A12sOppo A15Oppo A15sOppo A54Oppo A5sOukitel K9Samsung Galaxy A03sTecno Camon 15 ProTecno Phantom 9Umidigi PowerVivo Y12sVivo Y17Vivo Y21Vivo Y30Vivo Y30iXiaomi Mi PlaySmartphones with the processor Samsung Exynos 850:
Samsung Galaxy A21sSamsung Galaxy F12Samsung Galaxy M12Disclaimer:
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.
Information:
We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer's website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.