Samsung Exynos 2400 โ an 10-core chipset that was announced on January 17, 2024, and is manufactured using a 4-nanometer process technology. It has 1 core Cortex-X4 at 3210 MHz, 2 cores Cortex-A720 at 2900 MHz, 3 cores Cortex-A720 at 2600 MHz, and 4 cores Cortex-A520 at 1950 MHz.
Review
CPU Performance
75
Gaming Performance
59
Battery life
86
NanoReview Score
73
Compare Samsung Exynos 2400 with other SoCs
Benchmarks
Performance tests in popular benchmarks
AnTuTu 11
The AnTuTu Benchmark measures CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O performance in different scenarios
Please modify the battery error in exynos 2400 and exynos 2400e processor written battery life 86 is the same number in Exynos 2200 and Exynos 2400 more efficient processor Presumably Exynos 2400 and Exynos 2400e are in battery life 87 not 86 Number battery used in Exynos 2200
Also there is an error in the battery exynos 2400 Battery 86? It is the same number as Exynos 2200 and Exynos 2400 more energy efficient processor. The number is supposed to rise more than 86 to 88 for example.
+4Reply
HijibijSeptember 17, 2025 at 02:02 PM
If you do Antutu test now you'll get 2M score in exynos 2400. Don't know why its number keeps upgrading.
Storage type UFS 3.1, UFS 4.0 -> UFS 4.0
Download speed Up to 9640 Mbps -> Up to 12100 Mbps
Upload speed Up to 2550 Mbps -> Up to 3167 Mbps
Wi-Fi 7 -> 6E
Bluetooth 5.4 -> 5.3
Random, UFS is backward compatible, the E2400 supports UFS4.0, if the phone manufacturer (Samsung Mobile) decided to use UFS3.1 instead its their issue not the SoC itself.
+1Reply
DennyJune 9, 2025 at 10:26 AM
This Samsung chip is capable of having 42 TOPS which completely outperforms apple A18 pro chip that has 35 TOPS. But Snapdragon 8 gen 4 was rumored to deliver 100 TOPS?
A-R-K-E, And how they'll make Exynos processors and sell them in Korea when they can't even make them due to the problems with their 3nm process?
0Reply
MarkMay 30, 2025 at 05:48 PM
They wanna cut cost while not making their customers remember their Exynos reputation from 2020 to 2022.
0Reply
PermavirginSeptember 6, 2024 at 09:49 PM
Knowing that the Exynos 1480 is doing well, I just hope this chip does something the same way the Dimensity 8100 did when it came out.
+23Reply
NameApril 29, 2025 at 12:15 AM
I don't know what the two extra cores are supposed to do, compensating for battery life I guess, and not incredible performance per watt ratio.
If Samsung claims that the Exynos is comparable to Snapdragon, at least use it on the Ultra to support that nonsense.
0Reply
L commenterFebruary 14, 2026 at 04:29 AM
Name, Lmao bro got no like
+1Reply
King Miracle.August 20, 2024 at 05:54 AM
The problem with the 2400 is the inefficient modem. That's why it scores less in battery performance than most other Chipsets.
+35Reply
HerseaJuly 14, 2024 at 04:17 PM
If you're unsure regarding execution units and shading units then just don't bother putting them in the first place. Instead put available information like workgroup processor count and compute unit count since Xclipse GPUs use AMD's rDNA architecture anyway. For 2400, it has 6 WPs and 12 CUs. Exynos 2200 has 3 WP and 6 CUs while Exynos 1480 probably has 1 WP and 2 CUs.
Answered you here:
https://nanoreview.net/en/soc/mediatek-dimensity-9300#:~:text=REPLY-,Root,-July%2014%2C%202024
and here:
https://nanoreview.net/en/soc/samsung-exynos-1480#:~:text=REPLY-,Root,-July%2014%2C%202024
If you're unsure of what you are talking about then don't post as well, Xclipse in not just an AMD RDNA architecture, it has many architectural changes made by Samsung, its a custom GPU based on AMD RDNA.
+1Reply
CPUFanboiJanuary 24, 2024 at 04:49 AM
I've been wondering, even with a 10-core configuration, Samsung's Exynos 2400 still couldn't surpass the performance of the 8-core SD8Gen3. Additionally, when looking at the GPU benchmarks, it appears to have almost half the performance of the Adreno 750, if not less.
+63Reply
TheoJanuary 28, 2024 at 01:09 PM
Because all the cores operate at a lower clock speed than the Snapdragon 8 Gen 3, especially the Cortex X4 and A720 cores - which are the most significant - the Exynos 2400's two additional A520 cores essentially have no impact on performance. The Xclipse 940 is undoubtedly as powerful as the Adreno 750. I haven't found any benchmark where the Xclipse 940 delivers only half the performance of the Adreno 750. More importantly, the Xclipse 940 even surpasses the Adreno 750 in some games and matches it in every other aspect (refer to NL Tech).
+89Reply
johnAugust 26, 2024 at 11:35 AM
Half as much l3 cache...
+4Reply
zamizaApril 22, 2025 at 04:01 PM
I'm curious if the new 10-core Exynos 2500 could even come close to the 8 Elite 2 in every aspect
0Reply
DrMujeebHamid.January 21, 2024 at 03:54 PM
If the sustained performance of the E2400 matches even last year's SD 8gen2, it would be considered a significant improvement.
Now, the ball is in Samsung's court to encourage developers to optimize games for Exynos.
PS: I hope they don't do a poor job optimizing the 8gen3 on the S24 Ultra just to make Exynos seem on par, tricking all of us.
The Exynos 2500 should be like this:
1รCortex x5 @ 3.25 GHz
5รCortex 730 @ 2.75 GHz
2ร Cortex 730 @ 2.00 GHz
* No more small cores. Despite their size, they are weak, ineffective, and inefficient. They are a blot on the landscape of efficiency.
+29Reply
SametApril 9, 2024 at 08:16 PM
No,
Exynos 2500
1X X5 at 3.300 MHz
4X A730 at 2.950 MHz (with L3 = 16 Mb, 3nm, and 6W)
3X A530 at 2.200 MHz
If we proceed as you suggest, even when the screen is turned off for operations that require minimal power, it will consume excessive energy (like the Dimensity 9300) and overheat. This issue is particularly undesirable on phones with smaller batteries such as the S24. It would be more beneficial to compromise on power in favor of improved efficiency.
+3Reply
ZeroJune 17, 2024 at 02:44 PM
Samet, The issue is the non-even, small cores affect the architecture of the processor a lot. Small cores work like AMD Bulldozer ones.
0Reply
Gung HuJune 21, 2024 at 09:02 AM
Samet, Stop spreading misinformation lol ,in battery tests even standby the the Vivo X100 is on par with other Android flagships. And outside benchmarks, the 8 Gen 3 heats slightly more the the Dimensity 9300 with its higher clock speeds. Fckin meatrider.
+3Reply
TEMHETJune 21, 2024 at 09:11 AM
Samet, Going back to the 8 cores from 10 as well as the 1+4+3 configuration is a downgrade when the 2400 is already at 1+5+4. The 8 Gen 3 proved that the Cortex A520 is not worth it considering that 2 merged A520 occupies the same size as the A720. The A520 sucks at its job since an A720 running at 1.8 GHz is already better than an A510 running at 2.0 GHz energy wise. Exynos will just continue with the better 10 core configuration like they do now since their fabrication is not getting better. They will probably do a one X925 + five A725 + four A520.
+4Reply
ErebusJanuary 20, 2024 at 03:03 AM
The Exynos 2400 has already been tested by several YouTubers. It has been demonstrated to effectively handle heat and performance. When playing Genshin Impact, it maintains almost a perfect 60 fps, with minor dips around 50 fps, but it never goes under 50 fps. No issues have been detected in relation to thermal throttling.
+54Reply
xoisJanuary 28, 2024 at 01:13 PM
Reaching only 45-46ยฐC, that temperature is high, but every Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 device reaches up to an insanely high 48-50ยฐC. This is notable given that they perform almost the same as the Exynos 2400.
+37Reply
bopJanuary 19, 2024 at 12:21 AM
Can the admin delete the bot comments?
+50Reply
Botelho KunavaraJanuary 17, 2024 at 09:59 PM
Even if Samsung made Exynos chips from pure gold, I still wouldn't buy them. It's a farce. They proclaim improvement every year, but in reality, we, Asian users, are stuck with mediocre Exynos chips, despite paying the same amount as Americans. It's no laughing matter. I've had it with Samsung.
The S23 Ultra was a fair phone, but certainly not the best. Competing brands offer a one-inch sensor, superior chips, and generous zoom. The only reason I purchased the S23 Ultra was for the 10x telephoto lens, which no longer exists. So, for me, it's game over.
+25Reply
bobbyJanuary 18, 2024 at 11:38 PM
Most places don't even cost the same as the U.S. The U.S hasn't gotten a price hike on the base or plus models for years but some countries such as Australia and the UK have had a price hike with last years s23 and this years s24 series despite using exynos (excluding the s23 series). These countries are literally paying for Americans to get a cheaper yet better phone and it sucks really.
+6Reply
SpiceCatJanuary 15, 2024 at 12:17 PM
8K at 60FPS? That requires a tremendous amount of power. Even the A17 or Dimensity can't keep up... Let's see how Exynos performs this year.
+32Reply
MorselJanuary 18, 2024 at 04:28 AM
Samsung's Exynos ISP has always been incredibly powerful. The problem with Samsung is that they consistently inherit the shortcomings of Exynos SoC, yet they never provide users with the advantages of Exynos over Snapdragon.
+20Reply
JunnyJanuary 13, 2024 at 02:22 PM
Even if they made Exynos chips from pure gold, I still wouldn't buy them. It's nonsense. Every year they claim progress, but in the end, we Asian users are stuck with Exynos junk while spending the same amount of money as Americans. It's not funny. I'm done with Samsung.
The S23 Ultra was a decent phone, but definitely not the best. The competition has a one-inch sensor, amazing chips, and ample zoom. The only reason I bought the S23 Ultra was for the 10x telephoto, which no longer exists, so it's game over.
+23Reply
Ahamd 21January 20, 2024 at 11:23 AM
The Samsung S24 Ultra should surpass the S23 Ultra in terms of performance. It's anticipated to use the SD 8 Gen 3 for the Galaxy SoC, with a rumored CPU clock speed of 3.4 GHz. The standard clock speed for the SD 8 Gen 3 platform, which might be used by ZTE Nubia as well, is 3.3 GHz.
0Reply
UnknownDecember 26, 2023 at 02:41 PM
Okay, let's get this straight. This chip is a year behind! It's not even more powerful than the A16. What the heck? I'm not sure about the GPU though, but this doesn't look promising. Numerous times we've expressed preference for Snapdragon chips over Exynos. Let's consider this example: if you're an S23 Ultra user and you want to upgrade to an S24 Ultra, youโre essentially getting a chip which is less powerful. Instead of making the new phone superior to last year's model, you're basically downgrading. In summary, why, Samsung? We've told you we do not want Exynos chips, yet you don't seem to listen to what your customers want.
+16Reply
Your wrong boi!December 26, 2023 at 08:41 PM
No, S23 Ultra users will receive an upgrade while transitioning to the S24. However, Samsung is persisting with their questionable decision of favoring Exynos 2400 chips over the superior Snapdragon 8 Gen 3.
+3Reply
MaskedDecember 27, 2023 at 10:50 AM
The GPU is based on AMD RDNA 3 architecture
+18Reply
MMSniperDecember 31, 2023 at 10:02 AM
Exynos chips have traditionally been subpar and will most likely remain that way. The question you propose, however, isn't a valid one - why would anyone want to upgrade from the S23 Ultra to the S24 Ultra? Especially when the Exynos chip might only be used in the base model.
What I prioritise the most is efficiency. Apple is renowned for their single-core performance and extraordinary multi-core performance in ratio to the number of performance cores, not to mention their commendable efficiency. However, it's worth noting that these benefits aren't solely reliant on the chipset - the A17 notably consumes more power than the A16.
One crucial point to bear in mind is that we're talking about phones here. Most users won't even exploit a fraction of these high performances. The key factors are efficiency and software updates or optimisations. If the Exynos chip were to demonstrate sufficient efficiency, I would definitely consider it.
I currently own a Pixel 4a 5G that runs on a Snapdragon 765G with Android 14. The recent software update has breathed a new life into the phone; apps are snappier and more responsive, don't need to reload as often, and the battery life has improved. It just goes to show that, in most cases, software is as crucial, if not more, than the chipset itself. Ever wondered why the same chipset, the 8gen2, doesn't deliver the same performance or efficiency across all phones? Take the Zenfone 10 as an example; it handles the 8gen2 impressively due to how the software has been configured.
In conclusion, while performance is vital, efficiency is the make or break factor, especially when it comes to phone chips. Exynos chips perform poorly because of their mediocre efficiency. However, if the Snapdragon 765G chip can remain robust after over 3 years, any flagship phone today should last more than 5 years with the proper software updates, granted it started off being efficient.
+10Reply
AhmadJanuary 20, 2024 at 11:20 AM
MMSniper, SD 765G used fab 7LPP samsung, i hope Exynos 2400 used 4LPP+ perfect
+1Reply
NyaraJanuary 24, 2024 at 12:53 AM
The GPU was tested, and it displayed about a 40% uplift, similar to Adreno 750's 45%. Furthermore, it exhibits four times faster AI processing and supports most AMD technologies. This is a notable improvement, as Samsung has opted for AMD for the GPU this round. This enhancement increases stability and energy efficiency, allowing the device to run more coolly than the Adreno 750. It reduces the CPU load and memory usage, enabling more efficient multitasking. Not to mention, the productive apps using OpenCL operate with fewer bugs, a feature that benefits a broad range of them. Altogether, for graphics, it is undoubtedly a superior System on a Chip (SoC). It represents a clear upgrade, a trend similar to that observed in single-thread CPU performance.
However, it is important to acknowledge that it lags in multi-core CPU performance. Indeed, it does offer a modest 15% uplift, smaller in comparison to the Snap 8 Gen 3's 25% uplift. Then, there's the Dimensity 9300 which offers even more, though at a sacrifice to power efficiency and available only in more expensive devices.
+11Reply
AnonymousMay 5, 2024 at 02:32 AM
Nyara, Finally, someone who knows his stuff...
Some dude was yapping about how it's slower than the Apple A16.
What the heck... the A16 only wins in single-core performance.
It's beaten in every other category (maybe excluding energy efficiency).
In multi-core, the Exynos 2400 will make short work of the A16 Bionic.
Same for GPU performance.
