Introduction

The A13 Bionic vs Exynos 2200 vs Exynos 1680 comparison illustrates how processor rankings depend on architecture, software optimization and benchmark methodology, not just release year or core count.

Apple announced the A13 Bionic in September 2019. It uses a six-core CPU, Apple’s integrated GPU and TSMC’s 7nm manufacturing process. Samsung’s Exynos 2200 arrived in January 2022 with an eight-core CPU, Xclipse 920 graphics based on AMD RDNA 2 and a 4nm Samsung process. The newer Exynos 1680, announced in March 2026, uses eight CPU cores, Xclipse 550 graphics based on RDNA 3 and a 4nm process.

NanoReview’s overall scores are 54 for A13 Bionic, 53 for Exynos 2200 and 52 for Exynos 1680. The difference is small, but the category scores reveal distinct strengths: A13 leads the CPU and gaming ratings, whereas the Samsung chips provide newer memory, connectivity and multimedia features.

Quick Answer

The Apple A13 Bionic is the overall winner according to NanoReview, scoring 54 compared with 53 for Exynos 2200 and 52 for Exynos 1680. It leads the CPU and gaming ratings despite being the oldest processor. Exynos 2200 offers stronger listed flagship multimedia and connectivity capabilities, while Exynos 1680 provides a newer CPU architecture, RDNA 3 graphics and Bluetooth 6.1.

Specification Comparison

Source: NanoReview specifications. Missing values mean the relevant page does not list an equivalent figure; they do not prove the hardware lacks that feature.

CPU Architecture and Performance

A13 Bionic leads NanoReview’s CPU performance rating, while Exynos 1680 has the newest CPU architecture and the highest listed maximum clock speed.

A13 Bionic uses two high-performance Lightning cores at 2.65GHz and four Thunder efficiency cores at 1.6GHz. Its six-core design is paired with an 8MB L2 cache and ARMv8.4-A instruction set. Apple uses custom CPU cores rather than the standard Cortex-X/A configurations found in the Samsung processors.

Exynos 2200 uses one Cortex-X2 core at 2.8GHz, three Cortex-A710 cores at 2.52GHz and four Cortex-A510 efficiency cores at 1.82GHz. This eight-core layout was designed for flagship Android devices, combining a powerful prime core with separate performance and efficiency clusters.

Exynos 1680 uses one Cortex-A720 core at 2.9GHz, four more A720 cores at 2.6GHz and three Cortex-A520 cores at 1.95GHz. Unlike Exynos 2200, it does not include a separate Cortex-X prime core. Its newer ARMv9.2-A architecture is designed to deliver modern CPU capabilities within a mid-range power envelope.

NanoReview assigns CPU scores of 54 to A13 Bionic and 51 to each Exynos processor. The A13’s custom architecture remains competitive in single-core work, while the eight-core Samsung chips have more cores available for multithreaded workloads.

GPU and Gaming Performance

A13 Bionic has the highest NanoReview gaming score, while Exynos 1680 has the highest theoretical GPU FLOPS figure.

The A13’s Apple GPU is listed at 629.8 GFLOPS. Exynos 2200’s Xclipse 920 reaches 1003 GFLOPS, while Exynos 1680’s Xclipse 550 reaches 1228.8 GFLOPS. The Samsung GPUs use AMD-derived RDNA architectures, with the newer Exynos 1680 moving from RDNA 2 to RDNA 3. NanoReview’s gaming scores are:

These results favor the A13 in NanoReview’s aggregate gaming rating. Its custom GPU, iOS software and game optimization contribute to a different performance profile than the Android-oriented Xclipse GPUs.

The FLOPS figures should not be interpreted as a direct gaming ranking. Theoretical compute throughput, driver quality, graphics APIs, thermal limits and game compatibility all affect real performance. The higher Xclipse 550 FLOPS figure therefore does not establish that Exynos 1680 will outperform A13 Bionic in every game.

Manufacturing and Battery Efficiency

A13 Bionic has the highest NanoReview battery score, while both Exynos processors share the same lower rating.

Apple’s A13 is manufactured on a 7nm TSMC process, while Exynos 2200 and Exynos 1680 use 4nm Samsung processes. NanoReview gives the A13 a battery score of 88, compared with 86 for both Samsung processors.

This is an interesting result because the A13 is older and uses a larger process node, but its overall efficiency score is higher in NanoReview’s model. Manufacturing node alone does not determine power efficiency; architecture, voltage, sustained workload and software optimization also matter.

The battery rating is not a direct measurement of phone runtime. An older iPhone with a degraded battery may perform very differently from a newer Android phone with a larger battery and more efficient display.

RAM, Memory and Storage

Exynos 2200 has the highest listed memory bandwidth, while Exynos 1680 supports newer UFS storage and A13 Bionic uses NVMe.

A13 Bionic uses LPDDR4X memory at 2133MHz, with a listed maximum bandwidth of 34.1Gb/s and a maximum memory size of 4GB. Its storage specification is NVMe.

Exynos 2200 supports LPDDR5 at 3200MHz, up to 51.2Gb/s of bandwidth and up to 24GB RAM. Exynos 1680 uses LPDDR5X at 3200MHz, but NanoReview lists a maximum bandwidth of 25.6Gb/s and up to 12GB RAM. The listed maximum bandwidth for Exynos 1680 is lower than that of Exynos 2200 despite its newer memory type, reflecting differences in its listed bus configuration.

For storage, Exynos 2200 lists UFS 3.1, while Exynos 1680 lists UFS 3.1 and UFS 4.1. These differences affect the potential capacity and throughput of memory and storage, but actual smartphone configurations depend on the manufacturer.

AI and NPU

Exynos 1680 has the highest explicitly listed NPU throughput, but the published specifications do not establish a directly comparable AI ranking across all three processors.

NanoReview lists Apple’s Neural Engine in A13 Bionic with a theoretical performance of 5 TOPS. Exynos 2200 has a dedicated NPU but no equivalent TOPS figure listed. Exynos 1680 has an NPU rated at 19.6 TOPS.

Although Exynos 1680 has the highest published numerical figure, TOPS alone does not predict end-to-end AI performance. Precision, supported operators, model compatibility, memory bandwidth and software frameworks can change the result. A13’s Neural Engine is tightly integrated with Apple’s software ecosystem, while the Samsung NPUs serve Android workloads.

Camera, ISP and Video

Exynos 2200 has the strongest listed video-recording capability, while both Samsung processors list support for cameras up to 200MP.

NanoReview lists A13 Bionic with 4K video recording at 60fps. Exynos 2200 supports 8K30 and 4K120, providing the highest maximum listed recording capability in this group. Exynos 1680 is listed at 4K60.

Both Exynos pages list camera support up to 200MP, while A13’s current specification page does not provide an equivalent maximum sensor resolution. This does not mean A13 phones cannot take high-quality photos; sensor selection, optical quality and Apple’s image-processing software matter more than the maximum megapixel figure alone.

For users focused on video capture specifications, Exynos 2200 has the clear hardware advantage. For actual camera quality, device-level reviews are more informative than chipset specifications alone.

Display and Connectivity

Exynos 2200 supports the highest listed display resolution and peak 5G speed, while Exynos 1680 has the newest Bluetooth version.

A13 Bionic supports a maximum display resolution of 2688×1242 and has no integrated 5G support according to NanoReview. Exynos 2200 lists up to 3840×2160 display support, 5G download speeds up to 7.35Gbps and upload speeds up to 3.67Gbps. Exynos 1680 lists a maximum display resolution of 2960×1440 and 5G download speeds up to 5.1Gbps.

All three list Wi-Fi 6. Bluetooth support is 5.0 on A13, 5.2 on Exynos 2200 and 6.1 on Exynos 1680. This gives the newest Samsung chip the most recent Bluetooth specification, while Exynos 2200 has the strongest listed cellular and display capabilities.

Benchmark Comparison

A13 Bionic leads NanoReview’s CPU and gaming ratings, Exynos 2200 leads the listed AnTuTu 11 score, and Exynos 1680 has the highest reported Geekbench 6 multi-core result.

GPU Compute uses Metal for A13 Bionic and Vulkan for the Exynos processors. These API-dependent scores should not be treated as a direct cross-platform performance ranking.

Sources: A13 Bionic, Exynos 2200, Exynos 1680.

Important benchmark caveat: AnTuTu’s Android and iOS results are not directly comparable, as NanoReview itself notes. Therefore, the higher Exynos scores should not be interpreted as proof that Exynos 2200 is faster than A13 Bionic in every real-world task.

Geekbench adds more context. A13 Bionic records the highest single-core score, while Exynos 1680 leads multi-core. However, Exynos 1680’s listed Geekbench 6 result is based on only three tests, so that multi-core lead should be treated as provisional rather than a definitive result across all phones.

Real-World Performance

A13 Bionic remains strong in CPU responsiveness and NanoReview’s gaming rating, Exynos 2200 offers the broadest flagship multimedia specification, and Exynos 1680 provides newer connectivity and CPU architecture.

A13 Bionic is notable for its single-core results and iOS optimization. Devices using the chip can remain responsive in supported applications, but software-version compatibility, battery health and device age influence the experience.

Exynos 2200 provides the most advanced listed multimedia specification, particularly its 8K30 and 4K120 recording support, high-resolution display capability and integrated 5G connectivity. Its gaming rating remains lower than A13’s according to NanoReview, and sustained performance depends on the phone’s cooling design.

Exynos 1680 is a newer mid-range design with Cortex-A720 cores, RDNA 3 graphics, UFS 4.1 support and Bluetooth 6.1. It is not a direct replacement for every flagship feature in Exynos 2200, but its newer architecture and lower listed sustained power limit make it relevant for modern mid-range phones.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Apple A13 Bionic

Strengths

• Highest overall NanoReview score.
• Highest CPU performance and gaming ratings.
• Highest Geekbench 6 single-core result.
• Apple Neural Engine rated at 5 TOPS.
• 4K60 video recording.
• Strong iOS application optimization.

Weaknesses

• Older 7nm manufacturing process.
• No 5G support.
• Maximum listed RAM is 4GB.
• LPDDR4X memory and older connectivity standards.

Samsung Exynos 2200

Strengths

• Highest listed AnTuTu 11 result.
• High memory bandwidth at 51.2Gb/s.
• Xclipse 920 GPU based on RDNA 2.
• 8K30 and 4K120 video recording.
• 3840×2160 maximum display resolution.
• 7.35Gbps listed peak 5G download.

Weaknesses

• Lower CPU and gaming ratings than A13.
• Battery score of 86.
• UFS 3.1 listed.
• Bluetooth 5.2 rather than newer Bluetooth 6.x versions.

Samsung Exynos 1680

Strengths

• Newer Cortex-A720 CPU architecture.
• RDNA 3 Xclipse 550 GPU.
• NPU rated at 19.6 TOPS.
• UFS 4.1 support.
• Bluetooth 6.1.
• 5.1Gbps listed peak 5G download.

Weaknesses

• Lowest overall and gaming scores in this comparison.
• Lower listed memory bandwidth than Exynos 2200.
• Maximum RAM listed at 12GB.
• 4K60 maximum listed recording.

Best Processor for Different Users

Final Verdict and Ranking

A13 Bionic ranks first overall, Exynos 2200 ranks second, and Exynos 1680 ranks third according to NanoReview’s current composite scores.

#1 Apple A13 Bionic

The A13 Bionic wins with a NanoReview score of 54. It leads the CPU and gaming ratings and achieves the highest Geekbench 6 single-core result. Its custom CPU architecture and iOS optimization help it remain competitive despite its age. Its main limitations are the lack of 5G, older memory technology and restricted memory capacity.

#2 Samsung Exynos 2200

The Exynos 2200 scores 53 and offers the strongest listed multimedia specifications. It supports 8K30 and 4K120 recording, a 3840×2160 maximum display resolution, up to 24GB RAM and integrated 5G. It also has the highest listed AnTuTu 11 result, but Android and iOS AnTuTu results cannot be used as a direct cross-platform speed ranking.

#3 Samsung Exynos 1680

The Exynos 1680 scores 52 overall. It brings a newer Cortex-A720 CPU, RDNA 3 graphics, a 19.6 TOPS NPU specification, UFS 4.1 support and Bluetooth 6.1. Although it has the lowest gaming rating in this comparison, it is the newest mid-range platform and has modern connectivity features.

Winner Summary

Final Ranking

1. Apple A13 Bionic — 54
2. Samsung Exynos 2200 — 53
3. Samsung Exynos 1680 — 52

The central takeaway is that A13 Bionic wins NanoReview’s overall, CPU and gaming ratings despite being the oldest processor. Exynos 2200 offers stronger listed multimedia and cellular capabilities, while Exynos 1680 adds a newer CPU architecture, RDNA 3 graphics and Bluetooth 6.1. For real purchasing decisions, the individual phone’s software support, battery condition, cooling and price are as important as the chipset score.

Sources: NanoReview pages for Apple A13 Bionic, Samsung Exynos 2200 and Samsung Exynos 1680. Data checked October 10, 2026.