Introduction

The MediaTek Dimensity 9000, Google Tensor G3, and Samsung Exynos 2200 are three 2021-2023 flagship chips that still power a meaningful number of Android phones in active use today. This comparison matters because all three launched within roughly two years of each other yet took very different architectural paths  different GPU vendors, different foundries, and different core configurations  producing gaps in CPU speed, gaming performance, and efficiency that are still relevant to anyone buying or troubleshooting a device built on one of them. Every figure below comes from NanoReview’s published specifications and benchmark data for each chip.

Processor Overview

Dimensity 9000, Tensor G3, and Exynos 2200 all belong to the same broad flagship generation but reached the market roughly a year apart with different priorities. The Dimensity 9000, announced November 2021, was MediaTek’s first true flagship contender, combining a Cortex-X2 prime core with a Mali-G710 MP10 GPU on TSMC’s 4nm process and its own MediaTek APU 590 NPU. The Exynos 2200, announced January 2022, paired the same Cortex-X2/A710/A510 core layout with Samsung’s Samsung-fabricated 4nm process, but broke from Arm graphics entirely by shipping an AMD RDNA 2-derived Xclipse 920 GPU — a rare case of desktop-class GPU architecture inside a phone chip. The Tensor G3, announced October 2023, is the newest of the three, moving to a nine-core Cortex-X3/A715/A510 layout and a Mali-G715 MP7 GPU, still built on Samsung’s 4nm node. All three are classified as flagship chips, though only the Dimensity 9000 and Tensor G3 remain in wide circulation on current-generation devices; the Exynos 2200 is now largely a mid-cycle legacy chip found in Galaxy S22-series and S23 FE phones.

CPU Architecture & Processing Power

Which processor has the strongest CPU depends on which benchmark you weight more heavily — and here the three chips split in an interesting way. On raw Geekbench 6 scores, the Tensor G3 edges out both rivals, posting a single-core score of 1722 and multi-core score of 4458, narrowly ahead of the Dimensity 9000’s 1693 / 4384 (about 1.7% higher on both metrics) and more clearly ahead of the Exynos 2200’s 1588 / 3958 (about 8.4% single-core, 12.6% multi-core).

On AnTuTu 11’s CPU sub-test, the order flips: the Dimensity 9000 leads with 546,692, ahead of the Tensor G3’s 482,403 (about 13.3% higher) and the Exynos 2200’s 472,427 (about 15.7% higher). NanoReview’s own CPU Performance sub-score reflects a near-tie at the top — Dimensity 9000 and Tensor G3 both score 55, with Exynos 2200 trailing at 51.

This divergence between AnTuTu’s CPU sub-test and Geekbench’s benchmark isn’t a data error — the two tools weight sustained multi-workload throughput differently from short burst compute, so a chip can lead one and trail the other. For everyday responsiveness, the practical takeaway is that Dimensity 9000 and Tensor G3 are close enough to be indistinguishable in daily use, while the Exynos 2200 consistently sits a step behind both on every CPU metric.

GPU & Gaming Performance

The GPU picture here is unusually mixed, because the Exynos 2200’s Xclipse 920 uses a fundamentally different graphics architecture (AMD’s RDNA 2) than the Mali-based GPUs in the other two chips. On theoretical output, the Tensor G3’s Mali-G715 MP7 has the highest rated compute at 1594.8 GFLOPS, ahead of the Dimensity 9000’s Mali-G710 MP10 at 1085.4 GFLOPS, with the Exynos 2200’s Xclipse 920 lowest on paper at 1003 GFLOPS.

Measured results tell a different story for the Exynos 2200: its AnTuTu GPU sub-score of 390,230 and Geekbench GPU Compute score of 10,088 are both the highest of the three, ahead of the Tensor G3 (384,611 / 8076) and well ahead of the Dimensity 9000 (290,175 / 6397). This is a case where a lower theoretical GFLOPS figure doesn’t predict weaker measured GPU compute output — RDNA 2’s desktop-derived architecture appears to execute Geekbench’s and AnTuTu’s specific GPU workloads more efficiently than its raw FLOPS number would suggest.

On gaming-specific metrics, the Tensor G3 comes out ahead: it has the highest 3DMark Steel Nomad Light score (982, at 7 FPS) and the highest NanoReview Gaming Performance sub-score (33), compared to the Exynos 2200’s 900 (7 FPS) and Gaming Performance score of 32, and the Dimensity 9000’s 775 (6 FPS) and Gaming Performance score of 30. The Dimensity 9000 also has a Wild Life Extreme score of 2332 (13 FPS), and the Exynos 2200 has one too at 1918 (11 FPS) — the Dimensity 9000 leads that specific benchmark by about 21.6% — but since Tensor G3 has no Wild Life Extreme result in the supplied data, that comparison can’t be made across all three chips. None of the supplied data indicates ray-tracing support on any of the three chips.

Manufacturing Process & Efficiency

All three chips are built on a 4nm process, but only the Dimensity 9000 uses TSMC; both the Tensor G3 and Exynos 2200 are fabricated by Samsung. The supplied TDP figures track that foundry split closely: Dimensity 9000 has the lowest sustained power limit at 4W, Tensor G3 sits at 6W, and Exynos 2200 is highest at 7W. A smaller node label alone doesn’t guarantee lower power draw — but a real foundry difference on the same node size, paired with a real TDP gap this size, is a meaningful and disclosed distinction here, not a marketing claim.

That pattern carries into NanoReview’s Battery life sub-score: Dimensity 9000 leads at 91, Tensor G3 follows at 90, and Exynos 2200 trails at 86. Combined with its lowest TDP, the Dimensity 9000 has the clearest efficiency case of the three chips based on the supplied data, even though it’s the oldest and doesn’t lead on raw compute.

RAM, Memory & Storage Support

Dimensity 9000 and Exynos 2200 both support up to 24GB of RAM, ahead of the Tensor G3’s 16GB ceiling. But the memory type differs: Dimensity 9000 and Tensor G3 both use LPDDR5X, while the Exynos 2200 uses the older, slower LPDDR5 standard. That shows up directly in bandwidth — Tensor G3 rates highest at 68.2 Gb/s, Dimensity 9000 follows at 60 Gb/s, and Exynos 2200 is lowest at 51.2 Gb/s, despite matching the Dimensity 9000’s 24GB capacity ceiling.

In practice, this means the Dimensity 9000 offers the best combination of high capacity and modern memory type among the three, the Tensor G3 trades capacity for the fastest per-module throughput, and the Exynos 2200 has the least modern memory subsystem of the group despite tying for the highest RAM ceiling. On storage, Tensor G3 supports UFS 3.1 and UFS 4.0, while both Dimensity 9000 and Exynos 2200 are limited to UFS 3.1 in the supplied data.

AI & NPU Capabilities

Only the Dimensity 9000 names its AI accelerator — the MediaTek APU 590. Both Tensor G3 and Exynos 2200 are listed simply as having an NPU present, without a model name or TOPS figure disclosed for either. No verified AI performance number exists for any of the three chips in the supplied data.

Without disclosed TOPS or AI benchmark scores, no claim can be made about which chip processes generative AI, voice tasks, or computational photography AI faster based on the hardware specs alone. Not enough disclosed data to compare AI throughput directly across these three chips.

ISP, Camera & Video Capabilities

The Dimensity 9000 supports the highest maximum camera resolution of the three, at 1x320MP or 3x32MP simultaneous sensor support, ahead of the Tensor G3’s 1x200MP, 2x32MP and the Exynos 2200’s single 1x200MP sensor support. These are chip-level ISP ceilings, not a guarantee of actual photo quality — that depends on the sensor, lens, and tuning a phone manufacturer pairs with the chip.

Video capability shows a more layered gap. Both Tensor G3 and Exynos 2200 support 8K at 30FPS and 4K at 120FPS capture, well ahead of the Dimensity 9000’s 4K at 60FPS ceiling. On playback, the Exynos 2200 goes a step further than both rivals, supporting 8K at 60FPS and 4K at 240FPS, versus the Tensor G3’s matching 8K/30FPS and 4K/120FPS playback ceiling and the Dimensity 9000’s 4K/60FPS limit. All three support the same core codec set: H.264, H.265, AV1, and VP9. For anyone prioritizing high-frame-rate content playback specifically, the Exynos 2200 has the strongest disclosed spec of the three, even though it trails on camera resolution and CPU performance.

Display Support

Tensor G3 and Exynos 2200 both support display output up to 3840 x 2160, while the Dimensity 9000 is limited to 3200 x 1440. This is a chip-level ceiling for panel driving and external display output, not a promise 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

Unlike some comparisons where theoretical modem speeds go undisclosed, all three chips here have explicit rated download and upload figures. The Exynos 2200 has the highest rated download speed at 7350 Mbps, narrowly ahead of the Tensor G3’s 7300 Mbps and the Dimensity 9000’s 7000 Mbps. On upload, the Tensor G3 leads at 3700 Mbps, just ahead of the Exynos 2200’s 3670 Mbps, with the Dimensity 9000 well behind at 2500 Mbps. As with any modem spec, real-world 5G speeds rarely reach these theoretical maximums regardless of chip.

Short-range connectivity splits differently: the Tensor G3 is the only one of the three with Wi-Fi 7, while both the Dimensity 9000 and Exynos 2200 are limited to Wi-Fi 6. Bluetooth favors the older chips slightly — Dimensity 9000 and Tensor G3 both support Bluetooth 5.3, while the Exynos 2200 is limited to Bluetooth 5.2. On satellite navigation, the Dimensity 9000 has the broadest GNSS support, adding SBAS and NAVIC on top of GPS, GLONASS, Beidou, Galileo, and QZSS — a fuller system list than either the Tensor G3 (no SBAS or NAVIC) or the Exynos 2200 (no QZSS or SBAS, but does include NAVIC).

Benchmark Comparison

All three chips were tested with the same benchmark versions — AnTuTu 11, Geekbench 6, and 3DMark Steel Nomad Light — so the comparisons below are valid.

AnTuTu 11 total score: Dimensity 9000 leads at 1,504,467, followed by Exynos 2200 at 1,434,169 (about 4.9% behind) and Tensor G3 at 1,409,016 (about 6.8% behind the Dimensity 9000). The CPU sub-score drives most of that lead: Dimensity 9000’s 546,692 is well ahead of Tensor G3’s 482,403 and Exynos 2200’s 472,427. On the GPU sub-score, the order flips — Exynos 2200 leads at 390,230, Tensor G3 follows closely at 384,611, and Dimensity 9000 trails at 290,175.

Geekbench 6: Tensor G3 posts the highest single-core (1722) and multi-core (4458) scores, narrowly ahead of Dimensity 9000 (1693 / 4384, about 1.7% behind on both) and more clearly ahead of Exynos 2200 (1588 / 3958). On the GPU Compute test, Exynos 2200 leads at 10,088, ahead of Tensor G3’s 8076 and Dimensity 9000’s 6397 — consistent with the AnTuTu GPU sub-score pattern above, despite the Xclipse 920 having the lowest theoretical GFLOPS of the three.

3DMark Steel Nomad Light: Tensor G3 leads at 982, followed by Exynos 2200 at 900 (about 9.1% behind Tensor G3) and Dimensity 9000 at 775 (about 26.7% behind Tensor G3). Dimensity 9000 and Exynos 2200 both have supplied Wild Life Extreme scores (2332 and 1918 respectively, with Dimensity 9000 about 21.6% ahead), but since Tensor G3 has no Wild Life Extreme result, that specific benchmark can’t be compared across all three. Exynos 2200 also has a standalone 3DMark Solar Bay score of 3972 and a PCMark 3.0 score of 13,460, but neither benchmark was run on the other two chips, so those figures aren’t comparable here.

Real-World Performance

Everyday use: Dimensity 9000 and Tensor G3 are close enough in CPU performance to feel largely interchangeable in daily use, while the Exynos 2200 trails both on every CPU metric supplied and is the most likely of the three to feel slower under sustained multitasking.

Gaming: Tensor G3 has the strongest measured gaming profile (highest Gaming Performance sub-score and 3DMark Steel Nomad Light result), with Exynos 2200 close behind despite its unusual RDNA 2 architecture, and Dimensity 9000 trailing both on gaming-specific metrics despite leading on raw AnTuTu CPU output.

AI: No TOPS or AI benchmark data is disclosed for any of the three chips, so no real-world AI performance comparison can be made from the supplied specifications.

Camera: Dimensity 9000’s higher supported camera resolution and Exynos 2200’s superior video playback ceiling (8K/60FPS, 4K/240FPS) are chip-level capabilities only — actual photo and video output quality depends on the sensor and software a specific phone pairs with the chip.

Battery/efficiency: Dimensity 9000’s combination of the lowest TDP (4W) and highest Battery life sub-score (91) gives it the clearest efficiency edge of the three, backed directly by the supplied data rather than assumption from node size alone.

Strengths & Weaknesses

Dimensity 9000

• Strength: Best efficiency profile — lowest TDP (4W) and highest Battery life sub-score (91) of the three.
• Strength: Highest supported camera resolution (1x320MP or 3x32MP) and broadest GNSS support (adds SBAS and NAVIC).
• Weakness: Lowest 3DMark Steel Nomad Light score (775) and lowest Gaming Performance sub-score (30).
• Weakness: Capped at 4K/60FPS video and Wi-Fi 6/3200×1440 display, all behind at least one rival.

Tensor G3

• Strength: Highest Geekbench 6 single-core (1722) and multi-core (4458) scores, and highest NanoReview Score (56) and Gaming Performance sub-score (33) of the three.
• Strength: Only chip of the three with Wi-Fi 7 and UFS 4.0 support.
• Weakness: Lowest maximum RAM support (16GB) of the three.
• Weakness: Lowest AnTuTu CPU sub-score (482,403) despite leading Geekbench, and no L2/L3 cache figures disclosed.

Exynos 2200

• Strength: Highest measured GPU compute results — AnTuTu GPU sub-score (390,230) and Geekbench GPU Compute score (10,088) — despite the lowest theoretical GFLOPS of the three.
• Strength: Best video playback ceiling (8K/60FPS, 4K/240FPS) and highest rated modem download speed (7350 Mbps).
• Weakness: Lowest CPU Performance sub-score (51), lowest NanoReview Score (53), and lowest Battery life sub-score (86) of the three.
• Weakness: Uses older LPDDR5 (not LPDDR5X) memory and the lowest Bluetooth version (5.2).

Best Processor For Different Users

• Best for Gaming: Tensor G3 — highest Gaming Performance sub-score and 3DMark Steel Nomad Light result.
• Best for AI: Not enough disclosed data (no TOPS or AI benchmark figures for any chip) to name a winner.
• Best for Efficiency: Dimensity 9000 — lowest TDP and highest battery-life sub-score.
• Best for Camera (chip-level ISP): Dimensity 9000 — highest supported max camera resolution.
• Best for Connectivity: Tensor G3 — only chip with Wi-Fi 7, plus the highest rated upload speed.
• Best Balanced Choice: Dimensity 9000 — competitive CPU performance, best efficiency, and the broadest camera and GNSS support in one chip.

Final Verdict

1. Tensor G3 — Best Overall It carries the highest composite NanoReview Score (56), the strongest measured gaming performance (Gaming Performance sub-score of 33 and the top 3DMark Steel Nomad Light result), and a narrow Geekbench 6 lead over the Dimensity 9000 in both single- and multi-core tests.

2. Dimensity 9000 — Best For Efficiency and Camera It trails Tensor G3 on gaming and composite score but leads clearly on the metrics tied to real efficiency — lowest TDP and highest battery-life sub-score — while also offering the highest camera resolution support and the broadest satellite navigation coverage of the three.

3. Exynos 2200 — Best For GPU Compute Workloads It has the lowest CPU Performance and NanoReview scores of the three and the weakest battery-life sub-score, but its RDNA 2-based Xclipse 920 GPU posts the highest measured GPU compute results in both AnTuTu and Geekbench despite the lowest theoretical GFLOPS figure — a genuine, benchmark-backed strength that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Best for Gaming: Tensor G3 Best for AI: Not enough disclosed data to name a winner Best for Efficiency: Dimensity 9000 Best Balanced Choice: Dimensity 9000

Bottom Line: Choose the Tensor G3 if gaming performance and overall composite score matter most, and you can live with its 16GB RAM ceiling. Choose the Dimensity 9000 if battery efficiency, camera resolution support, and GNSS coverage are the priority, since it wins those categories outright on the supplied data despite being the oldest chip here. Choose a device with the Exynos 2200 mainly if its measured GPU compute strength or its 8K/60FPS video playback ceiling specifically matters to you — on every other major metric, it trails both rivals.