Introduction

The MediaTek Dimensity 8100, Samsung Exynos 2100, and HiSilicon Kirin 9010 are three chips built on very different constraints — a 2022 sub-flagship, a 2020 true flagship, and a 2024 chip built under fabrication restrictions that forced an older process node. This comparison matters because all three still appear in current or recently active phones, and their spec sheets tell a genuinely mixed story: the newest chip here doesn’t win every category, and the oldest chip isn’t simply outdated across the board. Every figure below comes from NanoReview’s published specifications and benchmark data for each chip.

Processor Overview

Dimensity 8100, Exynos 2100, and Kirin 9010 approach the flagship-adjacent tier from three different directions. The Dimensity 8100, announced March 2022 on TSMC’s 5nm node, is unusual among “flagship” chips in that it skips a prime Cortex-X core entirely, running eight cores split between Cortex-A78 and Cortex-A55, paired with a Mali-G610 MP6 GPU. The Exynos 2100, announced December 2020 on Samsung’s 5nm node, uses the more conventional 1+3+4 layout of a Cortex-X1 prime core, three Cortex-A78 performance cores, and four Cortex-A55 efficiency cores, alongside a 14-core Mali-G78 MP14 GPU. The Kirin 9010, announced April 2024, is the newest of the three but is built on SMIC’s 7nm process rather than a smaller TSMC or Samsung node, and uses HiSilicon’s own proprietary TaiShan V121 cores instead of licensed Arm Cortex-X/A designs, paired with an in-house Maleoon 910 GPU. All three sit in the flagship-to-upper-midrange class, with the Kirin 9010 exclusive to recent Huawei devices.

CPU Architecture & Processing Power

CPU performance splits differently depending on which benchmark is weighted. On AnTuTu 11’s total score, the Kirin 9010 leads at 1,177,196, ahead of the Dimensity 8100’s 1,092,605 (about 7.7% behind) and the Exynos 2100’s 1,065,369 (about 10.5% behind). The AnTuTu CPU sub-test shows the same order: Kirin 9010’s proprietary TaiShan cores post 512,832, well ahead of the Dimensity 8100’s 408,979 and the Exynos 2100’s 373,598.

Geekbench 6 tells a more mixed story. On single-core, the Exynos 2100 leads at 1435, narrowly ahead of the Kirin 9010’s 1421 (about 1% behind) and clearly ahead of the Dimensity 8100’s 1139 — a gap of roughly 26%. That single-core gap is explained directly by architecture: the Dimensity 8100 has no prime Cortex-X core at all, so its fastest core is a Cortex-A78 at 2.85GHz, while both rivals run a higher-tier prime core (Cortex-X1 for the Exynos 2100, a higher-clocked TaiShan V121 for the Kirin 9010). On multi-core, the Kirin 9010 leads at 4323, ahead of the Dimensity 8100’s 3842 (about 12.5% behind) and the Exynos 2100’s 3555 (about 21.6% behind). NanoReview’s CPU Performance sub-score reflects the Kirin’s overall edge: Kirin 9010 scores 48, Exynos 2100 scores 45, and Dimensity 8100 scores 43.

For everyday use, this means the Kirin 9010 has the strongest general CPU throughput of the three despite its older 7nm process, the Exynos 2100 is quickest to respond in short single-threaded bursts, and the Dimensity 8100’s lack of a prime core is a real, measurable limitation for peak single-core tasks even though it isn’t far behind in multi-core work.

GPU & Gaming Performance

The GPU comparison here has a sharp disconnect between theoretical and measured performance. On paper, the Kirin 9010’s Maleoon 910 has by far the highest rated compute at 1536 GFLOPS, roughly double the Exynos 2100’s Mali-G78 MP14 at 765.2 GFLOPS and more than double the Dimensity 8100’s Mali-G610 MP6 at 660.5 GFLOPS.

Every measured GPU benchmark inverts that order. The Kirin 9010 posts the lowest AnTuTu GPU sub-score (131,160) and the lowest Geekbench GPU Compute score (2655) of the three, while the Dimensity 8100 leads the AnTuTu GPU sub-score at 172,618 and the Exynos 2100 leads Geekbench GPU Compute at 6754. The 3DMark Wild Life Extreme benchmark — the one graphics test run on all three chips — confirms the pattern: Exynos 2100 scores highest at 1800 (10 FPS), Dimensity 8100 follows at 1540 (9 FPS, about 16.9% behind Exynos 2100), and Kirin 9010 trails at 1393 (8 FPS, about 29.2% behind Exynos 2100 and 10.6% behind the Dimensity 8100).

NanoReview’s own Gaming Performance sub-score gives a third view: Dimensity 8100 scores highest at 20, Exynos 2100 follows at 19, and Kirin 9010 is lowest at 18. The Dimensity 8100 also has a supplied real-game FPS table (tested on a OnePlus Ace at 1080×2412): PUBG Mobile at 77 FPS (Ultra), Call of Duty: Mobile at 60 FPS (Ultra), Genshin Impact at 57 FPS (Ultra), and similar results across five other titles — this data isn’t available for the other two chips, so it can’t be compared directly, but it does confirm the Dimensity 8100 handles popular mobile titles capably despite its comparatively low theoretical GFLOPS. Overall, the Kirin 9010’s Maleoon 910 is the clearest example in this comparison of a GPU whose spec-sheet number doesn’t predict its measured output — likely a driver or software-stack maturity issue rather than a hardware ceiling, similar to patterns seen with newer, less-established GPU architectures elsewhere in the industry. None of the supplied data indicates ray-tracing support on any of the three chips.

Manufacturing Process & Efficiency

Fabrication differs across all three. The Dimensity 8100 and Exynos 2100 are both built on a 5nm process — TSMC for the Dimensity 8100, Samsung for the Exynos 2100 — while the Kirin 9010 uses SMIC’s older 7nm process, the largest node of the three. TDP figures are disclosed for two of the three: Dimensity 8100 at 6W and Exynos 2100 at 8W; the Kirin 9010’s TDP is not disclosed in the supplied data.

NanoReview’s Battery life sub-score aligns with the disclosed TDP gap: Dimensity 8100 leads at 89, Exynos 2100 follows at 84, and Kirin 9010 trails at 81. Combined with its lower TDP, the Dimensity 8100 has the clearest efficiency case of the three based on the supplied data, despite trailing both rivals in raw multi-core CPU throughput.

RAM, Memory & Storage Support

The Exynos 2100 supports the highest maximum RAM of the three at 24GB, ahead of the Dimensity 8100 and Kirin 9010, both capped at 16GB. Memory type and speed favor the Kirin 9010, however: it’s the only one of the three using LPDDR5X rather than plain LPDDR5, running at 4266MHz with 68.2 Gb/s of bandwidth, versus 3200MHz and 51.2 Gb/s for both the Dimensity 8100 and Exynos 2100.

In practice, the Exynos 2100 suits configurations that ship with more total RAM, while the Kirin 9010 has the fastest per-module memory throughput of the three despite its older manufacturing node. On storage, the Kirin 9010 is the only chip of the three to support UFS 3.1 and UFS 4.0 — both the Dimensity 8100 and Exynos 2100 are limited to UFS 3.1 in the supplied data.

AI & NPU Capabilities

The Exynos 2100 is the only one of the three chips with a disclosed NPU performance figure: 26 TOPS. The Dimensity 8100 names its accelerator as the MediaTek APU 580, and the Kirin 9010 names its accelerator as the Da Vinci NPU, but neither has a TOPS rating in the supplied data.

Because only one of the three chips has a quantifiable AI performance number, no three-way comparison of AI throughput can be made from this data set. The Exynos 2100’s 26 TOPS figure stands on its own as the only verified reference point here — not enough disclosed data exists to say whether the Dimensity 8100 or Kirin 9010 performs above, below, or in line with it.

ISP, Camera & Video Capabilities

The Exynos 2100 supports the broadest camera configuration of the three, listing 1x200MP or 2x32MP simultaneous sensor support, compared to the Dimensity 8100’s single 1x200MP sensor support. The Kirin 9010’s maximum camera resolution is not disclosed in the supplied data. As with any chip-level ISP spec, these figures describe hardware ceilings only — they say nothing about the actual sensors or tuning a specific phone pairs with the chip.

Video capability shows the clearest single gap in this comparison. The Exynos 2100 supports 8K capture at 30FPS and 4K at 120FPS, with 8K playback at 60FPS — the strongest video spec of the three. Both the Dimensity 8100 and Kirin 9010 are limited to 4K at 60FPS for both capture and playback. There’s also a codec difference worth noting: the Dimensity 8100 and Exynos 2100 both list AV1 decode support alongside H.264, H.265, and VP9, while the Kirin 9010’s supplied codec list includes only H.264, H.265, and VP9 — no AV1 is listed for the Kirin 9010, a real gap for anyone relying on AV1 playback specifically.

Display Support

Exynos 2100 and Kirin 9010 both support display output up to 3840 x 2160, ahead of the Dimensity 8100’s 2960 x 1440 ceiling. This is a chip-level maximum for panel driving and external output, not a guarantee that any specific phone using these chips ships with a display at that resolution. Refresh rate figures are not disclosed for any of the three chips.

Modem, 5G & Connectivity

The Exynos 2100 has by far the fastest disclosed modem speeds of the three: up to 7350 Mbps download and 3670 Mbps upload, roughly 56% faster download and 47% faster upload than the Dimensity 8100’s 4700/2500 Mbps, and even further ahead of the Kirin 9010’s 4600/2500 Mbps. As with any modem specification, real-world 5G speeds rarely approach any of these theoretical maximums.

Wi-Fi generation is tied across all three at Wi-Fi 6. Bluetooth slightly favors the Dimensity 8100 at 5.3, versus 5.2 for both the Exynos 2100 and Kirin 9010. GNSS breadth favors the Dimensity 8100, which lists GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, QZSS, and NAVIC — six systems — compared to the Exynos 2100’s five (missing QZSS) and the Kirin 9010’s four (GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, and Galileo only, missing both QZSS and NAVIC), the narrowest satellite coverage of the three.

Benchmark Comparison

All three chips were tested with the same benchmark versions — AnTuTu 11, Geekbench 6, 3DMark Wild Life Extreme, and PCMark 3.0 — so the comparisons below are valid across all three.

AnTuTu 11 total score: Kirin 9010 leads at 1,177,196, followed by Dimensity 8100 at 1,092,605 (about 7.7% behind) and Exynos 2100 at 1,065,369 (about 10.5% behind). The CPU sub-score drives the Kirin’s lead (512,832 versus 408,979 and 373,598), while the GPU sub-score inverts the order, with Dimensity 8100 highest at 172,618, Exynos 2100 at 156,133, and Kirin 9010 lowest at 131,160.

Geekbench 6: Exynos 2100 leads single-core (1435) narrowly over Kirin 9010 (1421) and clearly over Dimensity 8100 (1139). Kirin 9010 leads multi-core (4323) over Dimensity 8100 (3842, about 12.5% behind) and Exynos 2100 (3555, about 21.6% behind). On GPU Compute, Exynos 2100 leads at 6754, well ahead of Dimensity 8100’s 3924 and Kirin 9010’s 2655 — the weakest measured GPU result despite Kirin’s highest theoretical GFLOPS figure.

3DMark Wild Life Extreme: Exynos 2100 leads at 1800 (10 FPS), followed by Dimensity 8100 at 1540 (9 FPS, about 16.9% behind) and Kirin 9010 at 1393 (8 FPS, about 29.2% behind Exynos 2100). This is the one graphics benchmark run on all three chips, and it confirms the same ranking seen in the GPU Compute test above.

PCMark 3.0: This everyday-workload benchmark shows a similar pattern to Wild Life Extreme: Exynos 2100 leads at 13,533, ahead of Dimensity 8100 at 11,862 (about 14.1% behind) and Kirin 9010 at 10,560 (about 28.2% behind Exynos 2100). Notably, both the Exynos 2100 and Kirin 9010 results are flagged by NanoReview as tested on fewer than three phone models, so these two PCMark figures carry a smaller sample size than the Dimensity 8100’s result, which was tested across six devices.

Real-World Performance

Everyday use: Exynos 2100’s PCMark 3.0 lead suggests the strongest everyday-workload experience of the three (web, photo editing, writing), even though its raw Geekbench multi-core score trails the Kirin 9010 — a reminder that synthetic CPU benchmarks and mixed real-world workload benchmarks don’t always agree.

Gaming: Dimensity 8100 has the highest NanoReview Gaming Performance sub-score and the only supplied real-game FPS data, while Exynos 2100 leads the one 3D graphics benchmark run on all three (Wild Life Extreme); Kirin 9010 trails on every measured gaming metric despite having by far the highest theoretical GPU output.

AI: Only the Exynos 2100 has a disclosed NPU performance figure (26 TOPS); there’s not enough data to compare AI throughput across all three chips.

Camera: Exynos 2100’s broader camera sensor support and clearly stronger video specs (8K capture, 8K/60FPS playback) are chip-level capabilities only — actual photo and video quality still depends on the sensor and software a phone maker pairs with the chip.

Battery/efficiency: Dimensity 8100’s lower TDP and highest battery-life sub-score give it a real, data-backed efficiency edge over both rivals.

Strengths & Weaknesses

Dimensity 8100

• Strength: Best efficiency profile of the three — lowest disclosed TDP (6W) and highest Battery life sub-score (89).
• Strength: Highest NanoReview Gaming Performance sub-score (20) and the only chip with supplied real-game FPS results.
• Weakness: No prime Cortex-X core, resulting in the lowest Geekbench 6 single-core score (1139) of the three by a wide margin.
• Weakness: Lowest maximum display resolution (2960×1440) and lowest RAM ceiling tied with Kirin 9010 (16GB).

Exynos 2100

• Strength: Only chip with a disclosed NPU TOPS figure (26 TOPS), and the strongest video spec set (8K capture, 8K/60FPS playback).
• Strength: Leads Geekbench GPU Compute (6754), 3DMark Wild Life Extreme (1800), and PCMark 3.0 (13,533) — the most real-world benchmark wins of the three.
• Weakness: Lowest AnTuTu total score (1,065,369) and lowest AnTuTu CPU sub-score (373,598) of the three.
• Weakness: Lowest Battery life sub-score (84) and highest disclosed TDP (8W).

Kirin 9010

• Strength: Highest AnTuTu 11 total score (1,177,196) and highest Geekbench 6 multi-core score (4323) of the three.
• Strength: Fastest memory subsystem (LPDDR5X, 68.2 Gb/s) and only chip supporting UFS 4.0 storage.
• Weakness: Lowest measured GPU performance across every benchmark (AnTuTu GPU sub-score, Geekbench GPU Compute, Wild Life Extreme) despite having by far the highest theoretical GFLOPS (1536).
• Weakness: Built on the oldest, largest process node (7nm SMIC), has no disclosed TDP, no disclosed max camera resolution, no AV1 codec support, and the narrowest GNSS coverage of the three.

Best Processor For Different Users

• Best for Gaming: Dimensity 8100 — highest Gaming Performance sub-score and the only supplied real-game FPS results.
• Best for AI: Exynos 2100 — the only chip with a disclosed NPU TOPS figure (26 TOPS).
• Best for Efficiency: Dimensity 8100 — lowest disclosed TDP and highest battery-life sub-score.
• Best for Camera/Video: Exynos 2100 — broadest camera sensor support and the strongest video capture/playback specs.
• Best for Raw CPU Throughput: Kirin 9010 — highest AnTuTu total score and Geekbench multi-core score.
• Best Balanced Choice: Exynos 2100 — the most category wins across GPU compute, video, camera, RAM, and modem speed, despite trailing in raw CPU synthetic scores.

Final Verdict

1. Exynos 2100 — Best Overall Despite being the oldest chip here and tying the other two on NanoReview’s composite score, it accumulates the most real-world category wins across this comparison — Geekbench GPU Compute, 3DMark Wild Life Extreme, PCMark 3.0, video and camera specs, RAM ceiling, modem speed, and the only disclosed NPU TOPS figure.

2. Dimensity 8100 — Best For Gaming and Efficiency It trails both rivals on raw CPU synthetic scores and lacks a prime Cortex-X core entirely, but it posts the highest Gaming Performance sub-score, the lowest TDP, and the highest battery-life sub-score of the three — a genuinely different strength profile than either rival.

3. Kirin 9010 — Best For Raw CPU Throughput It leads AnTuTu 11’s total score and Geekbench 6’s multi-core test by a clear margin, and has the fastest memory subsystem of the three, but its GPU underperforms its own spec sheet on every measured benchmark, and it’s held back by an older 7nm process, undisclosed TDP and camera specs, and the narrowest connectivity feature set.

Best for Gaming: Dimensity 8100 Best for AI: Exynos 2100 Best for Efficiency: Dimensity 8100 Best Balanced Choice: Exynos 2100

Bottom Line: Choose a device built on the Exynos 2100 if camera/video capability, GPU compute, and everyday PCMark-style performance matter most — it wins more real-world categories here than its tied composite score suggests. Choose the Dimensity 8100 if gaming performance and battery efficiency are the priority, and you’re fine trading away peak single-core speed. Choose the Kirin 9010 mainly for its strength in raw CPU throughput and faster memory, but go in aware its GPU consistently underperforms its own spec sheet and several specs (TDP, camera resolution, AV1 support) simply aren’t disclosed.