Dimensity 9600 Pro vs Tensor G6

We compared the 8-core MediaTek Dimensity 9600 Pro (Mali-G2 Ultra NX MP12) with the older 7-core Google Tensor G6 (PowerVR CXTP-48-1536) SoC. Here you will find the pros and cons of each chip, technical specs, and comprehensive tests in benchmarks, like AnTuTu and Geekbench.

Review

General comparison of performance, power consumption, and other indicators
CPU Performance
Single and multi-core processor tests
Gaming Performance
GPU performance in games and OpenCL/Vulkan
Battery life
Efficiency of battery consumption
NanoReview Score
Overall chip score

Key Differences

Main differences and advantages of each chip
Pros of MediaTek Dimensity 9600 Pro
  • Performs 2.8x better in floating-point computations
  • Shows significantly better (up to 2.5x) AnTuTu 11 score – 4838K vs 1933K
  • Has 8 MB larger L3 cache size than the Tensor G6
  • Supports 88% higher memory bandwidth (128 against 68.2 GB/s)
  • Has a smaller size transistor (2 versus 3 nm)
  • Higher GPU frequency (~40%)
  • Has 1 more cores
  • 11% higher CPU clock speed (4550 vs 4110 MHz)

Benchmarks

Performance tests in popular benchmarks

AnTuTu 11

The AnTuTu Benchmark measures CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O performance in different scenarios
4838033
1933536
CPU 1388289 876037
GPU 1881401 288736
Memory 488503 304202
UX 1079840 464561
Total score 4838033 1933536
Samples Less than 3 [4 tests]

GeekBench 6

The GeekBench test shows raw single-threaded and multithreaded CPU performance
Single-Core Score
4188
2755
Multi-Core Score
13145
7563
Samples - 6 tests
Compute Score (GPU)
Samples - 3 tests

3DMark

A cross-platform benchmark that assesses graphics performance in Vulkan (Metal)
3DMark Wild Life Extreme
Score 9245 -

Recent User Tests

The latest benchmark tests that have been submitted by users
MediaTek Dimensity 9600 Pro
No benchmark results yet
Google Tensor G6
DateBenchmarkResult
πŸ“˜ 2026-08-23 (Roni)GeekBench CPU2888 / 7641
πŸ“˜ 2026-08-14 (Flxen)GeekBench CPU2755 / 7563

Specifications

Full list of technical specifications of Dimensity 9600 Pro and Tensor G6

CPU

Architecture 2x 4.55 GHz – C2-Ultra
3x 4.35 GHz – C2-Pro
3x 3.1 GHz – C2-Pro
1x 4.11 GHz – C1-Ultra
4x 3.38 GHz – C1-Pro
2x 2.65 GHz – C1-Pro
Cores 8 7
Frequency 4550 MHz 4110 MHz
Instruction set ARMv9.3-A ARMv9.3-A
L1 cache 192 KB -
L2 cache 2 MB -
L3 cache 16 MB 8 MB
Process 2 nanometers 3 nanometers
Manufacturing TSMC TSMC

Graphics

GPU name Mali-G2 Ultra NX MP12 PowerVR CXTP-48-1536
Architecture Valhall 6th gen -
GPU frequency 1800 MHz 1286 MHz
Pipelines 12 6
Shading units 128 128
Total shaders 1536 768
FLOPS 5529.6 Gigaflops 1975.3 Gigaflops
Vulkan version 1.4 1.4
OpenCL version 3.0 3.0
DirectX version 12.2 -

AI Accelerator

Neural processor (NPU) MediaTek NPU 1090 Yes

Memory

Memory type LPDDR6 LPDDR5X
Memory frequency 5333 MHz 4266 MHz
Bus 4x 24 Bit 4x 16 Bit
Max bandwidth 128 Gb/s 68.2 Gb/s
Max size 24 GB 16 GB

Multimedia (ISP)

Storage type UFS 4.1 UFS 4.0, UFS 4.1
Max display resolution - 3840 x 2400
Max camera resolution 1x 200MP 1x 200MP
Video capture 8K at 60FPS, 4K at 120FPS 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS
Video playback 8K at 60FPS, 4K at 120FPS 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS
Video codecs - H.264
- H.265
- AV1
- VP9
- H.264
- H.265
- AV1
- VP9
Audio codecs - AAC LC
- FLAC
- HE-AACv1
- HE-AACv2
- MP3
- AAC
- AIFF
- CAF
- MP3
- MP4
- WAV

Connectivity

Modem - MediaTek M90
5G support Yes Yes
Download speed - Up to 12000 Mbps
Wi-Fi 7 7
Bluetooth - 6.0
Navigation GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS

Info

Announced September 2026 August 2026
Class Flagship Flagship
Model number MT6995 GS601
Official page MediaTek Dimensity 9600 Pro official site -

Cast your vote

So, which SoC would you choose?
4 (100%)
0 (0%)
Total votes: 4

Comments

Please give your opinion on the comparison of Tensor G6 and Dimensity 9600 Pro, or ask any questions
🌐 Register your profile and become part of NanoReview community!
Favi12 September 16, 2026 at 07:19 PM
Tensor chipset are out of the competition totally can't even beat a midrange chipset
0 Reply