Exynos 2400e vs Apple A18

We compared the 10-core Samsung Exynos 2400e (Samsung Xclipse 940) with the older 6-core Apple A18 (Apple A18 GPU) 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 Samsung Exynos 2400e
  • Performs 79% better in floating-point computations
  • Has 4 more cores
  • Supports 14% higher memory bandwidth (68.2 against 60 GB/s)
Pros of Apple A18
  • Higher GPU frequency (~36%)
  • 30% higher CPU clock speed (4050 vs 3110 MHz)
  • Has a smaller size transistor (3 versus 4 nm)

Benchmarks

Performance tests in popular benchmarks

AnTuTu 11

The AnTuTu Benchmark measures CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O performance in different scenarios
1977269
1972476
CPU 675682 611649
GPU 670589 589953
Memory 229976 181123
UX 401022 589751
Total score 1977269 1972476
Samples [56 tests] [29 tests]
AnTuTu results from iOS and Android are not directly comparable! They won't affect NanoReview scores.

GeekBench 6

The GeekBench test shows raw single-threaded and multithreaded CPU performance
Single-Core Score
Apple A18 +68%
3431
Multi-Core Score
Apple A18 +35%
8638
Asset compression 270.2 MB/sec 286.8 MB/sec
HTML 5 Browser 202.5 pages/sec 184.2 pages/sec
PDF Renderer 196.6 Mpixels/sec 201.2 Mpixels/sec
Image detection 150.7 images/sec 297.2 images/sec
HDR 200.6 Mpixels/sec 279.1 Mpixels/sec
Background blur 23.6 images/sec 36.2 images/sec
Photo processing 59.3 images/sec 90 images/sec
Ray tracing 7.7 Mpixels/sec 8.68 Mpixels/sec
Samples 24 tests 6 tests
Compute Score (GPU)
16611
Apple A18 +69%
28010
Background blur 27.9 images/sec 49.2 images/sec
Face detection 16.6 images/sec 71.8 images/sec
Horizon detection 0.69 Gpixels/sec 0.86 Gpixels/sec
Edge detection 0.74 Gpixels/sec 1.14 Gpixels/sec
Gaussian blur 0.66 Gpixels/sec 1.44 Gpixels/sec
Feature matching 0.23 Gpixels/sec 0.39 Gpixels/sec
Stereo matching 50.5 Gpixels/sec 77.7 Gpixels/sec
Particle physics 2483.5 FPS 2811.1 FPS
API OpenCL Metal
Samples 21 tests 4 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
1769
1579
Score 1769 1579
Stability 70% 75%
Graphics test 13 FPS 12 FPS
3DMark Solar Bay
7699
6750
Score 7699 6750
Graphics test 29 FPS 26 FPS
Section 1 35 FPS 31 FPS
Section 2 28 FPS 26 FPS
Section 3 24 FPS 20 FPS

PCMark 3.0

Benchmark for evaluating overall system performance in everyday workloads
PCMark 3.0
Web score 15997 -
Video editing score 8031 -
Data manipulation score 12347 -
Photo editing score 33878 -
Writing score 19836 -
Phones tested Less than 3 -

Recent User Tests

The latest benchmark tests that have been submitted by users
Samsung Exynos 2400e
DateBenchmarkResult
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-21 (Vishnu)AnTuTu 122276561
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-08 -> lUjekShCPU Throttle81%
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-08 -> lUjekShAnTuTu 122134029
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-08 -> lUjekShCPU Throttle0%
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-08 -> lUjekShGeekbench 6 CPU2014 / 6373
Apple A18
DateBenchmarkResult
πŸ“˜ 2026-07-30 (Dddd)AnTuTu 111905485
πŸ“˜ 2026-07-18 (Aj)AnTuTu 111949745
πŸ“˜ 2026-07-15 (vovachips)AnTuTu 111842572
πŸ“˜ 2026-07-03 (iTzRageeh)Geekbench 6 CPU3531 / 9122
πŸ“˜ 2026-07-03 (iTzRageeh)AnTuTu 112045650

Specifications

Full list of technical specifications of Exynos 2400e and Apple A18

CPU

Architecture 1x 3.11 GHz – Cortex-X4
2x 2.9 GHz – Cortex-A720
3x 2.6 GHz – Cortex-A720
4x 1.95 GHz – Cortex-A520
2x 4.05 GHz – Everest
4x 2.42 GHz – Sawtooth
Cores 10 6
Frequency 3110 MHz 4050 MHz
Instruction set ARMv9.2-A ARMv9.2-A
L2 cache - 8 MB
L3 cache 8 MB -
Process 4 nanometers 3 nanometers
TDP (Sustained Power Limit) - 9 W
Manufacturing Samsung TSMC

Graphics

GPU name Samsung Xclipse 940 Apple A18 GPU
Architecture RDNA 3 Apple Bionic GPU
GPU frequency 1095 MHz 1490 MHz
Pipelines 6 5
Shading units 128 128
Total shaders 768 640
FLOPS 3406.8 Gigaflops 1907 Gigaflops
Vulkan version 1.3 -
OpenCL version 3.0 -
DirectX version 12.1 -

AI Accelerator

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

Memory

Memory type LPDDR5X LPDDR5X
Memory frequency 4200 MHz 3750 MHz
Bus 4x 16 Bit 4x 16 Bit
Max bandwidth 68.2 Gb/s 60 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 -
Max camera resolution 1x 320MP 1x 48MP
Video capture 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS 4K at 120FPS
Video playback 8K at 60FPS, 4K at 120FPS 4K at 120FPS
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 X71 5G
4G support LTE Cat. 24 LTE Cat. 24
5G support Yes Yes
Download speed Up to 9640 Mbps Up to 10000 Mbps
Upload speed Up to 2550 Mbps Up to 3500 Mbps
Wi-Fi 6 7
Bluetooth 5.3 5.3
Navigation GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, NAVIC

Info

Announced September 2024 September 2024
Class Flagship Flagship
Model number - APL1V08
Successor - - Apple A19

Cast your vote

So, which SoC would you choose?
294 (27%)
793 (73%)
Total votes: 1087

Comments

Please give your opinion on the comparison of Apple A18 and Exynos 2400e, or ask any questions
🌐 Register your profile and become part of NanoReview community!
Avatar
Exynos 2400e September 20, 2025 at 01:13 AM
I am in power now and beating the phones of apple πŸ˜‚, you guys can only talk or meet me in samsun phone you will never b disappointed this time (because i beat you already)
+3 Reply
Avatar
oblivion August 8, 2025 at 03:22 AM
both chips are powerful but a18 leads in software hardware smoothness compared to Exynos
+7 Reply
Avatar
Bud September 2, 2025 at 04:53 AM
Exynos chips are bad πŸ˜‘
+9 Reply
Avatar
Sankor March 11, 2026 at 03:48 PM
Bud, Have you ever used a phone with the 2400? It's good af
0 Reply