Tiger T618 vs Snapdragon 680

We compared two 8-core processors: Unisoc Tiger T618 (with Mali-G52 MP2 graphics) and Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 (Adreno 610). 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 Qualcomm Snapdragon 680
  • Performs 3.5x better in floating-point computations
  • Has a smaller size transistor (6 versus 12 nm)
  • Shows better (up to 38%) AnTuTu 11 score – 424K vs 308K
  • Higher GPU frequency (~31%)
  • 20% higher CPU clock speed (2400 vs 2000 MHz)

Benchmarks

Performance tests in popular benchmarks

AnTuTu 11

The AnTuTu Benchmark measures CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O performance in different scenarios
308208
424216
CPU 131035 185604
GPU 30005 26544
Memory 66964 114814
UX 80204 97254
Total score 308208 424216
Samples [3 tests] [82 tests]

GeekBench 6

The GeekBench test shows raw single-threaded and multithreaded CPU performance
Single-Core Score
Multi-Core Score
Asset compression 74.1 MB/sec 85.7 MB/sec
HTML 5 Browser 40.5 pages/sec 43.2 pages/sec
PDF Renderer 50.6 Mpixels/sec 59.4 Mpixels/sec
Image detection 24.7 images/sec 15.7 images/sec
HDR 43.8 Mpixels/sec 49.8 Mpixels/sec
Background blur 3.19 images/sec 2.98 images/sec
Photo processing 12.4 images/sec 11.3 images/sec
Ray tracing 2.17 Mpixels/sec 2.59 Mpixels/sec
Samples 2 tests 35 tests
Compute Score (GPU)
Tiger T618 +197%
1033
Background blur 1.66 images/sec 0.32 images/sec
Face detection 1.03 images/sec 0.16 images/sec
Horizon detection 0.05 Gpixels/sec 0.03 Gpixels/sec
Edge detection 0.09 Gpixels/sec 0.04 Gpixels/sec
Gaussian blur 0.04 Gpixels/sec 0.02 Gpixels/sec
Feature matching 0.01 Gpixels/sec 0.01 Gpixels/sec
Stereo matching 3.06 Gpixels/sec 1.48 Gpixels/sec
Particle physics 108.4 FPS 26.6 FPS
API Vulkan OpenCL
Samples 2 tests 20 tests

3DMark

A cross-platform benchmark that assesses graphics performance in Vulkan (Metal)
3DMark Wild Life Extreme
Score 185 172
Stability 98% 97%
Graphics test 1 FPS 1 FPS

PCMark 3.0

Benchmark for evaluating overall system performance in everyday workloads
PCMark 3.0
7585
Web score 7085 7531
Video editing score 3913 4072
Data manipulation score 6203 6097
Photo editing score 15223 14785
Writing score 9356 8535
Phones tested Less than 3 16 models

Gaming

Table of average FPS and graphics settings in mobile games
PUBG Mobile - 59 FPS
[Medium]
Call of Duty: Mobile - 60 FPS
[Low]
Fortnite - 23 FPS
[Low]
Shadowgun Legends - 65 FPS
[Low]
World of Tanks Blitz - 62 FPS
[Medium]
Genshin Impact - 26 FPS
[Low]
Mobile Legends: Bang Bang - 54 FPS
[Ultra]
Device - Xiaomi Redmi Note 11
1080 x 2400
We provide average results. FPS may differ, depending on game version, OS and other factors.

Recent User Tests

The latest benchmark tests that have been submitted by users
Unisoc Tiger T618
DateBenchmarkResult
πŸ“˜ 2026-05-02 (ken)AnTuTu308208
πŸ“˜ 2026-02-13 (Gemini.)AnTuTu364048
πŸ“˜ 2024-11-25 (Stephano95)GeekBench GPU1033
πŸ“˜ 2024-11-25 (Stephano95)GeekBench CPU431 / 1206
Qualcomm Snapdragon 680
DateBenchmarkResult
πŸ“˜ 2026-09-13 (Eron)AnTuTu521704
πŸ“˜ 2026-08-27 (That one guy)AnTuTu441460
πŸ“˜ 2026-08-21 -> a05stechAnTuTu448569
πŸ“˜ 2026-08-21 (A05stech)AnTuTu448569
πŸ“˜ 2026-08-19 (Mohammed)GeekBench GPU348

Specifications

Full list of technical specifications of Tiger T618 and Snapdragon 680

CPU

Architecture 2x 2 GHz – Cortex-A75
6x 1.8 GHz – Cortex-A55
4x 2.4 GHz – Kryo 265 Gold (Cortex-A73)
4x 1.9 GHz – Kryo 265 Silver (Cortex-A53)
Cores 8 8
Frequency 2000 MHz 2400 MHz
Instruction set ARMv8.2-A ARMv8.2-A
Process 12 nanometers 6 nanometers
Manufacturing TSMC TSMC

Graphics

GPU name Mali-G52 MP2 Adreno 610
Architecture Bifrost 2nd gen Adreno 600
GPU frequency 850 MHz 1114 MHz
Pipelines 2 1
Shading units 24 128
Total shaders 48 128
FLOPS 81.6 Gigaflops 285.2 Gigaflops
Vulkan version 1.3 1.1
OpenCL version 2.0 2.0
DirectX version - 12.1

AI Accelerator

Neural processor (NPU) No Hexagon 686

Memory

Memory type LPDDR4X LPDDR4X
Memory frequency 1866 MHz 2133 MHz
Bus 2x 16 Bit 2x 16 Bit
Max bandwidth - 17 Gb/s
Max size 8 GB 8 GB

Multimedia (ISP)

Storage type eMMC 5.1 eMMC 5.1, UFS 2.2
Max display resolution 2400 x 1080 2520 x 1080
Max camera resolution 1x 64MP, 2x 16MP 1x 64MP, 2x 16MP
Video capture 1K at 60FPS 1K at 60FPS
Video playback 1080p at 60FPS 1080p at 60FPS
Video codecs - H.264
- H.265
- VP9
- H.264
- H.265
- VP8
- VP9
Audio codecs - AAC
- AIFF
- CAF
- MP3
- MP4
- WAV
- AIFF
- CAF
- MP3
- MP4
- WAV

Connectivity

Modem - X11
4G support LTE Cat. 7 LTE Cat. 13
5G support No No
Download speed Up to 300 Mbps Up to 390 Mbps
Upload speed Up to 150 Mbps Up to 150 Mbps
Wi-Fi 5 5
Bluetooth 5.0 5.1
Navigation GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, SBAS, NAVIC

Info

Announced August 2019 October 2021
Class Low end Low end
Model number - SM6225
Official page Unisoc Tiger T618 official site Qualcomm Snapdragon 680 official site
Successor - Unisoc Tiger T620 -

Cast your vote

So, which SoC would you choose?
241 (31.3%)
529 (68.7%)
Total votes: 770

Comments

Please give your opinion on the comparison of Snapdragon 680 and Tiger T618, or ask any questions
🌐 Register your profile and become part of NanoReview community!
Avatar
system error March 27, 2024 at 10:19 AM
UniSoC T618 supports a maximum RAM size of 8GB.
+12 Reply
Avatar
eFeMeR January 8, 2023 at 07:21 PM
Let's just say that both processors are the same. They are on the same level. Snapdragon manages resources better because it is made with different technology. Better in battery management. consumption is lower
+85 Reply
Avatar
Pierce March 30, 2023 at 11:42 PM
Agreed. Performance is virtually identical but the Sanpgragon squeaks out the efficiency win with a MUCH newer process node but ancient cores.
+33 Reply