Introduction

The Dimensity 8300, Dimensity 9000, and Exynos 2200 sit at an unusual intersection: a 2023 mid-range chip going up against two 2021-2022 flagship processors. This comparison matters because a newer mid-tier chipset built on updated Cortex-A715/A510 cores and a modern Mali-G615 GPU can, in several measurable ways, outperform silicon that once powered the Galaxy S22 Ultra and OnePlus Ace 2V. Using the specifications and benchmark data supplied by NanoReview, this article breaks down where each chip actually leads, where the gap is marketing noise, and which one makes sense depending on what a buyer wants from their phone.

Processor Overview

The Dimensity 8300, Dimensity 9000, and Exynos 2200 come from three different points in MediaTek and Samsung’s product cycles, and that gap shapes everything else in this comparison. The Dimensity 9000 launched in November 2021 as MediaTek’s first true flagship contender, pairing a single Cortex-X2 prime core with a Mali-G710 MP10 GPU on a 4nm TSMC process. The Exynos 2200 followed two months later, in January 2022, as Samsung’s answer for the Galaxy S22 series, notable for replacing Samsung’s usual Mali GPU with an AMD RDNA 2-based Xclipse 920, built on Samsung’s own 4nm node.

The Dimensity 8300 arrived almost two years later, in November 2023, positioned by MediaTek as a mid-range chip rather than a flagship. It drops the Cortex-X2 prime core in favor of a cluster of Cortex-A715 cores, all clocked higher than the flagship chips it’s compared against here, paired with a smaller six-core Mali-G615 GPU run at a much higher clock speed. NanoReview classifies the Dimensity 8300 as mid-range and both rivals as flagship, but the supplied benchmark scores show the classification gap doesn’t map cleanly onto real performance in every category.

CPU Architecture & Processing Power

The Dimensity 9000 has the strongest single-core and multi-core CPU on paper, but the Dimensity 8300 narrows the gap in whole-system CPU workloads more than the architecture difference suggests. The Dimensity 9000’s Cortex-X2 prime core, clocked at 3.05GHz, delivers a Geekbench 6 single-core score of 1693, a 23.1% lead over the Dimensity 8300’s 1375. That’s the clearest sign of the X2 core’s raw single-thread advantage over the Dimensity 8300’s Cortex-A715-based prime cluster. The Exynos 2200’s Cortex-X2, clocked lower at 2.8GHz, scores 1588 single-core, still 15.5% ahead of the 8300.

Multi-core tells a different story. The Dimensity 9000 leads the 8300 by a much smaller 4.0% (4384 vs 4217), and the Dimensity 8300 actually beats the Exynos 2200’s multi-core score by 6.5% (4217 vs 3958). The 8300’s four extra high-clocked Cortex-A715 performance cores compensate for the missing X-series prime core when work is spread across threads, which is common in everyday multitasking and background processing.

The AnTuTu 11 CPU sub-score reverses part of this pattern again: the Dimensity 9000 leads the 8300 by 13.3% (546,692 vs 482,670), while the 8300 edges the Exynos 2200 by 2.2% (482,670 vs 472,427). AnTuTu’s CPU test weighs sustained multi-threaded load differently than Geekbench, so the two benchmarks aren’t measuring identical things, but the consistent takeaway across both is that the Dimensity 9000’s Cortex-X2 gives it the clearest CPU headroom for tasks that depend on a single fast thread, such as opening heavy apps or handling UI animations, while the Dimensity 8300 holds its own or wins in workloads that spread across all eight cores.

For everyday use, this means app launching and quick single-tasking should feel marginally snappier on the Dimensity 9000, while heavier multitasking, background sync, and sustained processing show a much smaller real-world gap than the single-core numbers imply.

GPU & Gaming Performance

The Dimensity 8300 has the strongest raw graphics throughput of the three, which is the standout result of this comparison given it’s the newest but also the “mid-range” chip on paper. Its Mali-G615 MP6, clocked at 1400MHz, produces 2150.4 GFLOPS, more than double the Dimensity 9000’s Mali-G710 MP10 at 1085.4 GFLOPS and more than double the Exynos 2200’s Xclipse 920 at 1003 GFLOPS. That FLOPS advantage comes from an aggressive clock speed on a smaller core count (6 cores vs 10 on the 9000), rather than a fundamentally larger GPU, and MediaTek’s community comments flag that this clock-heavy approach can raise thermals under sustained load.

The gap shows up consistently in graphics benchmarks. In 3DMark Wild Life Extreme, the Dimensity 8300 scores 2768, beating the Dimensity 9000’s 2332 by 18.7% and the Exynos 2200’s 1918 by 44.3%. In 3DMark Steel Nomad Light, the 8300 scores 881 versus the 9000’s 775 (a 13.7% lead) and edges just behind the Exynos 2200’s 900 by about 2.2%. The AnTuTu GPU sub-score tells the same story: the 8300’s 432,750 beats the Dimensity 9000’s 290,175 by 49.1% and the Exynos 2200’s 390,230 by 10.9%.

There is one notable exception. On Geekbench 6’s Compute (GPU) test, the Exynos 2200 scores 10,088, dramatically ahead of the Dimensity 8300’s 5134 and the Dimensity 9000’s 6397. This is the RDNA 2 architecture showing its strength in compute-style workloads (the kind Geekbench Compute measures, like image processing and feature matching) rather than the traditional mobile-game rendering pipeline that 3DMark and AnTuTu’s GPU tests emphasize. No FPS figures were supplied beyond the raw 3DMark “graphics test” frame counts embedded in the benchmark runs, so exact in-game frame rates for specific titles cannot be stated here.

For gaming, the practical reading is that the Dimensity 8300 should offer the most graphics headroom in rendering-heavy mobile titles and the best Wild Life-style 3D performance of the three, the Exynos 2200’s RDNA 2 GPU is likely stronger in compute-driven visual effects, and the Dimensity 9000 sits behind both on nearly every graphics metric supplied despite being marketed as a flagship chip two years older than the 8300.

Manufacturing Process & Efficiency

All three chips are built on a 4nm process, but the foundry and TDP figures differ, and NanoReview’s supplied TDP numbers suggest the Dimensity 9000 is designed for the lowest sustained power draw. The Dimensity 8300 and Dimensity 9000 are both fabricated by TSMC on 4nm, while the Exynos 2200 uses Samsung’s own 4nm node. A shared node size does not automatically mean equal efficiency, since transistor density, clock strategy, and core mix all affect real power draw, and the supplied TDP figures back this up: the Dimensity 9000 carries a 4W sustained power limit, the Dimensity 8300 sits at 6W, and the Exynos 2200 is highest at 7W.

Lower TDP generally points to less heat and steadier sustained performance, so on paper the Dimensity 9000 has the most conservative power envelope of the three, even though its actual CPU and GPU benchmark scores (outside single-core CPU) don’t lead the comparison. The Dimensity 8300’s higher clock speeds on both CPU and GPU likely explain its higher 6W TDP relative to the 9000, a tradeoff for the extra graphics throughput described above. The Exynos 2200’s 7W TDP, the highest of the three, lines up with its lower NanoReview battery-life score (86, versus 91 for both MediaTek chips), suggesting the Samsung-fabricated 4nm process and RDNA 2 GPU combination runs hotter under load than either MediaTek chip in this comparison.

RAM, Memory & Storage Support

The Dimensity 8300 has the newest and fastest memory subsystem of the three, largely because it’s the youngest chip in this comparison. All three chipsets support LPDDR5X or LPDDR5 memory up to 24GB, but the Dimensity 8300 runs LPDDR5X at 4266MHz for 68.2 Gb/s of bandwidth, ahead of the Dimensity 9000’s LPDDR5X at 3750MHz (60 Gb/s) and well ahead of the Exynos 2200’s older LPDDR5 at 3200MHz (51.2 Gb/s). Higher memory bandwidth generally helps with multitasking headroom and reduces stutter when many apps are held in memory simultaneously, though the real-world effect depends heavily on how much RAM a given phone ships with, which isn’t part of the chip-level data supplied here.

Storage support shows a similar generational gap: the Dimensity 8300 supports UFS 4.0, while both the Dimensity 9000 and Exynos 2200 top out at UFS 3.1. UFS 4.0 offers meaningfully faster sequential and random read/write speeds than UFS 3.1, which translates to quicker app installs, faster file transfers, and shorter load times, though actual storage speed also depends on which UFS 4.0 chip a phone manufacturer selects.

AI & NPU Capabilities

The Dimensity 8300’s APU 780 is the newer of the two named NPUs and is paired with the fastest memory subsystem of the group, but the supplied data doesn’t include comparable TOPS figures for any of the three chips, so a direct AI-performance ranking isn’t possible here. MediaTek names its NPU as the APU 780 on the Dimensity 8300 and the APU 590 on the Dimensity 9000, both used for on-device AI tasks like camera scene detection, background processing, and voice features, though the supplied specifications don’t include TOPS ratings or a breakdown of which generative AI features each supports. Samsung’s Exynos 2200 data simply confirms an NPU is present without naming it or its architecture. Not enough disclosed data to compare generative AI capability, TOPS throughput, or specific AI feature support across the three chips with confidence; any claims beyond “each chip includes a dedicated NPU” would go beyond what NanoReview’s supplied data states.

ISP, Camera & Video Capabilities

The Exynos 2200 supports the most demanding video capture and camera resolution ceiling of the three, while the Dimensity 9000 is the only chip supplied with multi-camera resolution data. On maximum single-camera resolution, the Dimensity 8300 and Dimensity 9000 both support up to a 320MP sensor, while the Exynos 2200 tops out lower at 200MP. However, the Dimensity 9000 is the only one of the three with disclosed simultaneous multi-camera support, listing 1x 320MP plus 3x 32MP, information not supplied for the other two chips.

Video capability is where the Exynos 2200 pulls clearly ahead. It supports 8K video capture at 30FPS and 4K at 120FPS, with playback up to 8K at 60FPS and 4K at 240FPS. Both the Dimensity 8300 and Dimensity 9000 are limited to 4K at 60FPS for both capture and playback in the supplied data, a full resolution tier behind the Exynos 2200’s ceiling. All three chips share the same video codec list (H.264, H.265, AV1, VP9), so the difference is in resolution and frame-rate ceilings, not format compatibility.

It’s worth stressing that these are chip-level capabilities, not guarantees about any specific phone’s camera. A phone’s actual photo and video quality depends on its sensors, lenses, and image-processing tuning as much as the SoC’s ISP, so a chip that “enables” 8K30 or a 320MP sensor doesn’t mean every phone using it will ship with those features active.

Display Support

The Exynos 2200 supports the highest display resolution ceiling of the three chips, while the Dimensity 9000 sits ahead of the Dimensity 8300. The Exynos 2200 supports up to 3840 x 2160 (4K), the Dimensity 9000 supports up to 3200 x 1440 (QHD+), and the Dimensity 8300 supports up to 2960 x 1440. These figures represent the maximum resolution the chip’s display pipeline can drive, not what any specific phone actually ships with. No refresh rate or HDR display data was supplied for any of the three chips, so no comparison can be made on those points; that gap should read as “not disclosed in the supplied data” rather than an assumption that any chip lacks high-refresh or HDR display support.

Modem, 5G & Connectivity

The Exynos 2200 has the fastest theoretical 5G download and upload speeds of the three, with the Dimensity 8300 clearly behind both rivals. The Exynos 2200’s Exynos 5300 modem supports downloads up to 7350 Mbps and uploads up to 3670 Mbps, ahead of the Dimensity 9000 at 7000 Mbps down / 2500 Mbps up, and well ahead of the Dimensity 8300 at 5170 Mbps down (no upload figure supplied). All three chips support 4G LTE Cat. 24 and 5G, and all three ship with Wi-Fi 6, though Bluetooth versions differ slightly: 5.4 on the Dimensity 8300, 5.3 on the Dimensity 9000, and 5.2 on the Exynos 2200, with newer Bluetooth versions generally offering better power efficiency and connection stability rather than large practical speed differences for most users.

Real-world 5G speeds rarely come close to these theoretical maximums, since actual throughput depends on carrier infrastructure, network congestion, signal strength, and the specific 5G bands a phone’s antenna design supports, none of which are part of the chip-level modem specification. So while the Exynos 2200’s 7350 Mbps ceiling is the highest of the three on paper, most users are unlikely to notice a meaningful day-to-day difference between any of these three modems on a typical carrier network. GNSS support is broadly similar across all three, with the Dimensity 8300 and Exynos 2200 differing only slightly in which satellite systems are listed (the 8300 includes QZSS and NAVIC alongside GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, and Galileo; the 9000 additionally lists SBAS; the Exynos 2200 lists GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, and NAVIC without QZSS or SBAS in the supplied data).

Benchmark Comparison

Across AnTuTu 11 and Geekbench 6, the same version used for all three chips, the Dimensity 8300 leads in overall AnTuTu score and GPU-weighted tests, while the Dimensity 9000 leads in raw CPU-weighted tests. All benchmark figures below come from AnTuTu 11 and Geekbench 6, so version-matched percentage comparisons are valid across all three chips.

AnTuTu 11 (total score): Dimensity 8300 leads at 1,604,305, ahead of the Dimensity 9000’s 1,504,467 by 6.6% and the Exynos 2200’s 1,434,169 by 11.9%.

AnTuTu 11 (CPU sub-score): Dimensity 9000 leads at 546,692, ahead of the Dimensity 8300’s 482,670 by 13.3%; the Dimensity 8300 edges the Exynos 2200’s 472,427 by 2.2%.

AnTuTu 11 (GPU sub-score): Dimensity 8300 leads at 432,750, ahead of the Exynos 2200’s 390,230 by 10.9% and the Dimensity 9000’s 290,175 by 49.1%.

Geekbench 6 (single-core): Dimensity 9000 leads at 1693, ahead of the Exynos 2200’s 1588 by 6.6% and the Dimensity 8300’s 1375 by 23.1%.

Geekbench 6 (multi-core): Dimensity 9000 leads at 4384, ahead of the Dimensity 8300’s 4217 by 4.0%, which in turn leads the Exynos 2200’s 3958 by 6.5%.

Geekbench 6 Compute (GPU): Exynos 2200 leads decisively at 10,088, more than double the Dimensity 9000’s 6397 and nearly double the Dimensity 8300’s 5134.

3DMark Wild Life Extreme: Dimensity 8300 leads at 2768, ahead of the Dimensity 9000’s 2332 by 18.7% and the Exynos 2200’s 1918 by 44.3%.

3DMark Steel Nomad Light: Exynos 2200 leads narrowly at 900, ahead of the Dimensity 8300’s 881 by about 2.2%, with the Dimensity 9000 trailing at 775.

PCMark 3.0: Only supplied for the Dimensity 8300 (13,963) and Exynos 2200 (13,460); the Dimensity 8300 leads by 3.7%. No PCMark 3.0 data was supplied for the Dimensity 9000, so a three-way comparison on this benchmark isn’t possible.

The clear pattern across every version-matched benchmark: the Dimensity 8300 wins on GPU-weighted and combined tests, the Dimensity 9000 wins on CPU-weighted tests, and the Exynos 2200 wins specifically on Geekbench’s compute-style GPU test while trailing in most rendering-focused graphics benchmarks. A benchmark score is a synthetic measurement, not a guarantee of how a phone feels in daily use, so these figures should be read as directional evidence rather than an exact predictor of real-world speed.

Real-World Performance

Everyday use. App launching and UI responsiveness should feel marginally snappier on the Dimensity 9000 given its single-core lead, but the Dimensity 8300’s stronger multi-core and AnTuTu UX scores (389,647 for the 8300 vs 430,138 for the 9000, though the 9000 leads here too) suggest background-heavy multitasking is competitive across both MediaTek chips. The Exynos 2200’s AnTuTu UX score of 355,339 is the lowest of the three, pointing to a slightly less smooth combined system-response experience in AnTuTu’s UX test specifically.

Gaming. The Dimensity 8300’s GPU lead in 3DMark Wild Life Extreme and AnTuTu’s GPU sub-score points to the strongest headroom for 3D-rendering-heavy mobile games among the three chips. Casual and competitive titles that lean more on CPU responsiveness may favor the Dimensity 9000’s single-core strength, while sustained heavy 3D sessions likely favor the 8300’s raw GPU throughput, with the caveat that its higher 6W TDP versus the 9000’s 4W could mean more aggressive thermal throttling over long sessions; this isn’t directly measurable from the supplied data.

AI. Both Dimensity chips list a named MediaTek APU, with the 8300’s APU 780 being the newer of the two, but the absence of TOPS figures or a generative-AI feature list in the supplied data means no confident comparison can be made on generative AI, camera AI, or voice-processing capability across any of the three chips.

Camera. The Dimensity 9000 is the only chip with disclosed multi-camera simultaneous support (1x 320MP plus 3x 32MP), and both Dimensity chips share the same maximum single-sensor resolution (320MP) ahead of the Exynos 2200’s 200MP ceiling. For video-focused buyers, though, the Exynos 2200’s 8K30/4K120 capture support outclasses both Dimensity chips’ 4K60 ceiling.

Battery/efficiency. NanoReview’s supplied battery-life scores put the Dimensity 8300 and Dimensity 9000 tied at 91, both ahead of the Exynos 2200’s 86. Combined with the Exynos 2200’s highest TDP figure (7W, versus 6W for the 8300 and 4W for the 9000), the supplied data points to the Exynos 2200 as the least efficient of the three under sustained load, while the Dimensity 9000’s lower TDP and matching battery-life score suggest it may run cooler despite trailing in most graphics benchmarks.

Strengths & Weaknesses

Dimensity 8300

• Strength: Highest AnTuTu 11 total score and clear GPU/gaming lead across 3DMark Wild Life Extreme and AnTuTu’s GPU sub-score.
• Strength: Newest memory and storage standards (LPDDR5X at 4266MHz, UFS 4.0), both ahead of the two rivals.
• Weakness: Trails both rivals on Geekbench 6 single-core CPU performance by a wide margin (23.1% behind the Dimensity 9000).
• Weakness: Lowest theoretical 5G download speed of the three (5170 Mbps vs 7000-7350 Mbps for the rivals).

Dimensity 9000

• Strength: Highest Geekbench 6 single-core and multi-core CPU scores of the three, reflecting its Cortex-X2 prime core.
• Strength: Lowest TDP (4W) of the three chips, pointing to the most conservative sustained power draw.
• Weakness: Weakest GPU throughput of the three in nearly every rendering benchmark (49.1% behind the Dimensity 8300 on AnTuTu’s GPU sub-score).
• Weakness: Oldest storage standard supplied (UFS 3.1, versus UFS 4.0 on the Dimensity 8300).

Exynos 2200

• Strength: Decisive lead in Geekbench 6 Compute (GPU) score, more than double both Dimensity chips.
• Strength: Highest supported video capture (8K30/4K120) and display resolution (4K) ceilings of the three.
• Weakness: Lowest NanoReview battery-life score (86) and highest TDP (7W) of the three chips.
• Weakness: Lowest AnTuTu 11 total score and weakest 3DMark Wild Life Extreme result of the group.

Best Processor For Different Users

• Best for Gaming: Dimensity 8300 — strongest GPU throughput and highest AnTuTu 11 total score.
• Best for AI: Not enough disclosed data to name a winner; TOPS figures and feature lists weren’t supplied for any of the three chips.
• Best for Efficiency: Dimensity 8300 and Dimensity 9000 (tied on NanoReview’s battery-life score at 91).
• Best for Camera/Video: Exynos 2200 for video resolution and frame-rate ceilings (8K30/4K120); Dimensity 9000 for disclosed multi-camera simultaneous support.
• Best for Connectivity: Exynos 2200 — highest theoretical 5G download and upload speeds.
• Best Balanced Choice: Dimensity 8300 — leads the overall AnTuTu score and gaming-related benchmarks while also carrying the newest memory and storage standards, though buyers who prioritize single-core CPU speed or 8K video should weigh the Dimensity 9000 or Exynos 2200 instead.

Final Verdict & Ranking

Final Verdict

1. Dimensity 8300 — Best Overall The Dimensity 8300 posts the highest AnTuTu 11 total score of the three, the clearest GPU/gaming lead across multiple version-matched benchmarks, and the newest memory (LPDDR5X 4266MHz) and storage (UFS 4.0) standards, despite being marketed as a mid-range chip against two flagship rivals.

2. Dimensity 9000 — Best For Raw CPU Speed The Dimensity 9000’s Cortex-X2 prime core delivers the highest Geekbench 6 single-core and multi-core scores of the three, and its 4W TDP is the lowest supplied figure in the comparison, making it the pick for buyers who prioritize single-thread responsiveness and a conservative power envelope over graphics throughput.

3. Exynos 2200 — Best For Video Capture The Exynos 2200 trails both MediaTek chips on AnTuTu 11 total score and most rendering-focused graphics benchmarks, and it carries the lowest NanoReview battery-life score of the three, but it clearly leads in video capture and playback ceilings (8K30/4K120) and Geekbench’s compute-focused GPU test.

Best for Gaming: Dimensity 8300 Best for AI: Not enough disclosed data to name a winner Best for Efficiency: Dimensity 8300 and Dimensity 9000 (tied) Best Balanced Choice: Dimensity 8300

Bottom Line: The Dimensity 8300 is the strongest all-around pick from the supplied data, backed by the highest AnTuTu 11 total score and a decisive graphics-benchmark lead despite being the newest and technically “mid-range” chip in this comparison. Choose the Dimensity 9000 specifically if single-core CPU speed and lower sustained power draw matter more to you than gaming performance, and choose the Exynos 2200 specifically if 8K video capture and display resolution ceiling are priorities, accepting a lower battery-life score and weaker overall benchmark standing in exchange.