Home > Smartphone processors comparison > Exynos 2400 vs A17 Pro – what's better?

Exynos 2400 vs A17 Pro

Exynos 2400
VS
A17 Pro
Exynos 2400
A17 Pro

We compared the 10-core Samsung Exynos 2400 (Samsung Xclipse 940) with the older 6-core Apple A17 Pro (Apple A17 GPU) SoC. Here you will find the pros and cons of each chip, technical specs, and comprehensive tests in benchmarks, like AnTuTu and Geekbench.

  1. Review
  2. Differences
  3. Benchmarks
  4. AnTuTu v11
  5. GeekBench 6
  6. Specs
  7. Comments (13)

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 Samsung Exynos 2400
  • Has 4 more cores
  • Performs 59% better in floating-point computations
  • Shows better (up to 39%) AnTuTu 11 score – 2046K vs 1467K
  • Supports 33% higher memory bandwidth (68.2 against 51.2 GB/s)
  • Better instruction set architecture
Pros of Apple A17 Pro
  • Has a smaller size transistor (3 versus 4 nm)
  • Higher GPU frequency (~28%)
  • 18% higher CPU clock speed (3780 vs 3210 MHz)

Benchmarks

Performance tests in popular benchmarks
SoC:
Exynos 2400
vs
A17 Pro

AnTuTu 11

The AnTuTu Benchmark measures CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O performance in different scenarios
Exynos 2400 +39%
2046435
A17 Pro
1467470
CPU 698933 374357
GPU 637772 463612
Memory 301201 184670
UX 408529 444831
Total score 2046435 1467470
Samples [93 tests] [21 tests]
AnTuTu results from iOS and Android are not directly comparable! They won't affect NanoReview scores.
Submit your AnTuTu result

GeekBench 6

The GeekBench test shows raw single-threaded and multithreaded CPU performance
Single-Core Score
Exynos 2400
2115
A17 Pro +40%
2969
Multi-Core Score
Exynos 2400
6826
A17 Pro +11%
7599
Asset compression 285.5 MB/sec 254.1 MB/sec
HTML 5 Browser 167.2 pages/sec 166 pages/sec
PDF Renderer 165.6 Mpixels/sec 180.7 Mpixels/sec
Image detection 168.2 images/sec 178.7 images/sec
HDR 207.3 Mpixels/sec 240.3 Mpixels/sec
Background blur 25.3 images/sec 26.7 images/sec
Photo processing 63.9 images/sec 77.8 images/sec
Ray tracing 7.73 Mpixels/sec 7.76 Mpixels/sec
Samples 38 tests 32 tests
Compute Score (GPU)
Exynos 2400
16273
A17 Pro +72%
28057
Background blur 28.2 images/sec 55.5 images/sec
Face detection 15 images/sec 65.1 images/sec
Horizon detection 0.6 Gpixels/sec 0.8 Gpixels/sec
Edge detection 0.51 Gpixels/sec 1.08 Gpixels/sec
Gaussian blur 0.84 Gpixels/sec 1.11 Gpixels/sec
Feature matching 0.22 Gpixels/sec 0.43 Gpixels/sec
Stereo matching 77.8 Gpixels/sec 87.6 Gpixels/sec
Particle physics 2872.5 FPS 3313.9 FPS
API Vulkan Metal
Samples 29 tests 22 tests
Compute results use different APIs (Metal vs Vulkan/OpenCL) and are not directly comparable!

3DMark

A cross-platform benchmark that assesses graphics performance in Vulkan (Metal)
3DMark Steel Nomad Light
Exynos 2400 +27%
1769
A17 Pro
1391
Score 1769 1391
Stability 67% 71%
Graphics test 13 FPS 10 FPS
3DMark Solar Bay
Exynos 2400 +36%
8302
A17 Pro
6089
Score 8302 6089
Stability - 73%
Graphics test 32 FPS 23 FPS
Section 1 37 FPS 29 FPS
Section 2 31 FPS 23 FPS
Section 3 25 FPS 16 FPS
3DMark Wild Life Extreme
Exynos 2400 +4%
3812
A17 Pro
3655
Score 3812 3655
Stability 57% 63%
Graphics test 22 FPS 21 FPS

PCMark 3.0

Benchmark for evaluating overall system performance in everyday workloads
PCMark 3.0
Exynos 2400
17172
A17 Pro
n/a
Web score 16695 -
Video editing score 8032 -
Data manipulation score 14884 -
Photo editing score 35055 -
Writing score 21619 -
Phones tested 3 models -

Recent User Tests

The latest benchmark tests that have been submitted by users
Samsung Exynos 2400
DateBenchmarkResult
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-27 (Halil)AnTuTu 122426875
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-25 (Omar_syriangamerr)AnTuTu 122245977
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-12 -> Viljami22AnTuTu 122321618
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-11 -> S25fe6833AnTuTu 122388378
πŸ“˜ 2026-08-17 (Neto)AnTuTu 112303141
Add View all (155)
Apple A17 Pro
DateBenchmarkResult
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-23 (podsolnuh)AnTuTu 111357765
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-11 (Zabza)AnTuTu 111599694
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-10 (elio)AnTuTu 111445771
πŸ“˜ 2026-07-28 (human)Geekbench 6 GPU26734
πŸ“˜ 2026-07-28 (human)Geekbench 6 CPU2892 / 7293
Add View all (69)

Specifications

Full list of technical specifications of Exynos 2400 and A17 Pro

CPU

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 3.78 GHz – Everest
4x 2.11 GHz – Sawtooth
Cores 10 6
Frequency 3210 MHz 3780 MHz
Instruction set ARMv9.2-A ARMv8.6-A
L1 cache - 256 KB
L2 cache - 16 MB
L3 cache 8 MB -
Process 4 nanometers 3 nanometers
Transistor count - 19 billion
TDP (Sustained Power Limit) 6 W 8 W
Manufacturing Samsung TSMC

Graphics

GPU name Samsung Xclipse 940 Apple A17 GPU
Architecture RDNA 3 Apple Bionic GPU
GPU frequency 1095 MHz 1398 MHz
Pipelines 6 6
Shading units 128 128
Total shaders 768 768
FLOPS 3406.8 Gigaflops 2147.2 Gigaflops
Vulkan version 1.3 -
OpenCL version 3.0 -
DirectX version 12.1 -

AI Accelerator

Neural processor (NPU) Yes Apple Neural Engine
NPU theoretical performance - 35 TOPS

Memory

Memory type LPDDR5X LPDDR5
Memory frequency 4200 MHz 3200 MHz
Bus 4x 16 Bit 4x 16 Bit
Max bandwidth 68.2 Gb/s 51.2 Gb/s
Max size 24 GB 8 GB

Multimedia (ISP)

Storage type UFS 3.1, UFS 4.0 NVMe
Max display resolution 3840 x 2400 1290 x 2796
Max camera resolution 1x 320MP 1x 48MP
Video capture 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS 4K at 60FPS
Video playback 8K at 60FPS, 4K at 120FPS 4K at 60FPS
Video codecs - H.264
- H.265
- AV1
- VP9		 - H.264
- H.265
- AV1
- VP8
- VP9
- 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 5400 Snapdragon X70
4G support LTE Cat. 24 LTE Cat. 24
5G support Yes Yes
Download speed Up to 12100 Mbps Up to 7500 Mbps
Upload speed Up to 3670 Mbps Up to 3500 Mbps
Wi-Fi 6 6
Bluetooth 5.3 5.3
Navigation GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC

Info

Announced January 2024 September 2023
Class Flagship Flagship
Model number S5E9945 APL1V02
Official page Samsung Exynos 2400 official site -
Successor - Samsung Exynos 2500 - Apple A19 Pro

Cast your vote

So, which SoC would you choose?
1646 (80.6%)
395 (19.4%)
Total votes: 2041

Related Comparisons

1. Samsung Exynos 2400 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (29)
2. Samsung Exynos 2400 vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 (99)
3. Samsung Exynos 2400 vs Samsung Exynos 2200 (2)
4. Samsung Exynos 2400 vs Apple A16 Bionic (6)
5. Samsung Exynos 2400 vs Google Tensor G3
6. Apple A17 Pro vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 (141)
7. Apple A17 Pro vs Apple A18 Pro (19)
8. Apple A17 Pro vs Apple M1 (iPad) (8)
9. Apple A17 Pro vs Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (58)
10. Apple A17 Pro vs Apple A16 Bionic (19)
Compare other chipsets (190+)

Comments

Please give your opinion on the comparison of A17 Pro and Exynos 2400, or ask any questions
🌐 Register your profile and become part of NanoReview community!
Avatar
Daeho November 14, 2024 at 09:48 AM
A few years ago, Apple Bionic was the best followed by Qualcomm and Exynos.... while MediaTek was fourth or even fifth after HiSilicon. Now, MediaTek competes with Qualcomm for the top spot while Apple and Exynos battle for third and fourth place.
+1 Reply
Avatar
Chidera Micheal June 10, 2024 at 10:54 AM
You guys should accept the fact that the A17 Pro is slightly more powerful than the Exynos 2400.
+42 Reply
Avatar
Qwerty August 28, 2024 at 06:25 PM
A17 Pro is only slightly ahead on CPU (beats SD 8 Gen 3 too) but way worse GPU, the difference of GPU is bigger than the difference of CPU so I would say Exynos 2400 is the winner
+9 Reply
Avatar
AbrΓ£o March 29, 2024 at 01:15 PM
In real-world tests, the Exynos 2400 has proven to be superior to the A17 in battery life, scoring 19:56 minutes for the Exynos compared to 19:52 minutes for the A17 Pro. When it came to GPU and CPU performance tests, it ranked close to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3. There was one test in which the Exynos managed to surpass them all: ray tracing. It achieved 930fps in ray tracing, compared to the 735fps from the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3.
+34 Reply
Avatar
Weakling April 28, 2024 at 01:36 AM
Underpowered chips usually do offer a better battery life - A17 Pro vs E2400 And a difference of 4 minutes barely matters in the real life. Apparently, everyone rarely publishes Vulkan tests for a simulated comparison of the E2400 vs A17 Pro GPUs.
+9 Reply
Avatar
Android king March 2, 2024 at 11:35 PM
There's nothing wrong with the Exynos 2400, but the A17 is sadly much more powerful, albeit unstable.
+35 Reply
Avatar
Lon April 27, 2024 at 08:14 PM
Apple remains unbeatable in the CPU department since the introduction of the A11 Bionic. However, in the GPU sector, they have begun to lag behind. Even the Adreno 740 of the SD 8 Gen 2, which is completely outperformed by both the Adreno 750 and Xclipse 940, is better than Apple's A17 Pro.
+13 Reply
Avatar
GTG January 19, 2024 at 12:54 AM
For those of you avoiding the Exynos due to past experiences, remember that Samsung took a year off to improve it. So why not give it a try when you have the chance?
+59 Reply
Avatar
sad January 21, 2024 at 01:54 PM
Take a look at Google's Tensor from G1 to G3. It's an experiment featuring the new Exynos. Here's hoping it will surpass the Google Tensor.
+5 Reply
Avatar
Anonymous 69 January 12, 2024 at 09:54 PM
To the individuals supporting Exynos, we will evaluate after the S24 launch. Even though certain aspects may be superior on Exynos, Apple could likely triumph due to TSMC manufacturing and optimization on iOS.
+3 Reply
Avatar
Zhinazhu December 23, 2023 at 04:34 AM
Playing the word game of "A17 Pro", it implies that Cook has reached the end of the road. I cannot imagine that the performance of the A17 without Pro is even inferior to the A16, to the extent that Apple would not dare to show it to everyone.
+24 Reply
Avatar
Lolmerlin December 6, 2023 at 05:12 AM
Based on the votes it looks like people hate apple 🀣
+90 Reply
Avatar
barack obama May 19, 2024 at 08:26 PM
In general if apple opened its ecosystem for combability with all devices it would be better for the consumers but maybe not them because they wouldn't be able to suck in people to be loyal fans to spend more money on their products anymore.
+9 Reply
EnglishРусский