Introduction

The Exynos 2400e vs Exynos 2400 vs A16 Bionic comparison brings together two Samsung flagship-class processors and Apple’s 2022 flagship chipset.

Samsung announced Exynos 2400 in January 2024 and Exynos 2400e in September 2024. Both use a 10-core CPU, Samsung Xclipse 940 graphics based on AMD RDNA 3, and a 4nm manufacturing process. The primary CPU difference is that Exynos 2400 reaches 3.21GHz on its Cortex-X4 core, while Exynos 2400e is clocked at 3.11GHz.

Apple A16 Bionic launched in September 2022 using TSMC’s 4nm process. It has six custom CPU cores, an Apple-designed GPU and a Neural Engine rated at 17 TOPS. Although it has fewer CPU cores than either Exynos processor, its CPU rating is the highest of the three.

NanoReview’s overall scores are 75 for A16 Bionic, 73 for Exynos 2400 and 71 for Exynos 2400e. The ranking reflects the site’s aggregate scores, not an assumption that one chipset wins every category.

Quick Answer

The Apple A16 Bionic is the overall winner in this NanoReview comparison, scoring 75, followed by Samsung Exynos 2400 at 73 and Exynos 2400e at 71. A16 leads CPU performance and battery efficiency, while Exynos 2400 leads the gaming rating and offers 8K video recording, 4K120 capture and higher listed memory bandwidth. Exynos 2400e remains close to Exynos 2400, despite its lower CPU clock.

Specification Comparison

Source: NanoReview’s individual processor pages and Exynos comparison data. Specifications show listed capabilities and do not guarantee that every phone implements every feature.

CPU Architecture and Performance

A16 Bionic has the highest NanoReview CPU rating, followed by Exynos 2400 and Exynos 2400e.

Exynos 2400e uses one Cortex-X4 core at 3.11GHz, two Cortex-A720 cores at 2.9GHz, three Cortex-A720 cores at 2.6GHz and four Cortex-A520 efficiency cores at 1.95GHz. Exynos 2400 uses the same 10-core arrangement but raises the Cortex-X4 prime-core frequency to 3.21GHz. Both have an 8MB L3 cache.

A16 Bionic uses two custom Everest performance cores running at 3.46GHz and four Sawtooth efficiency cores at 2.02GHz. It has a 16MB L2 cache and a custom Apple CPU architecture rather than the standard Cortex-X and Cortex-A design used by Samsung.

NanoReview assigns CPU scores of 72 to Exynos 2400e, 75 to Exynos 2400 and 81 to A16 Bionic. The A16’s six-core configuration demonstrates that core count alone is not a reliable predictor of CPU performance. Custom architecture, clock speed, cache and software optimization also matter.

The difference between Exynos 2400 and Exynos 2400e is relatively small at the architectural level. Their CPU layout, GPU and memory specifications are identical in NanoReview’s comparison; the reduced prime-core frequency is the principal listed CPU difference.

GPU and Gaming Performance

Exynos 2400 leads NanoReview’s gaming rating, while both Exynos processors have the highest theoretical GPU FLOPS figure.

Exynos 2400e and Exynos 2400 use the same Xclipse 940 GPU, based on AMD’s RDNA 3 architecture. NanoReview lists 3406.8 GFLOPS for both chips. A16 Bionic’s integrated GPU is listed at 1789.4 GFLOPS, although these theoretical compute figures do not directly determine real-world gaming performance.

Their NanoReview gaming ratings are:

Exynos 2400 has the highest gaming score, three points above the other two. Its Xclipse 940 GPU is designed for demanding graphics workloads and supports modern graphics APIs.

The benchmark results are more nuanced than the rating alone. Exynos 2400 and Exynos 2400e each score 1769 in 3DMark Steel Nomad Light, while A16 has no listed result for that test on the cited page. In Solar Bay, Exynos 2400 scores 8302, Exynos 2400e 7699, and A16 Bionic 4266. A16’s Wild Life Extreme result is 3335, compared with 3812 for Exynos 2400. (NanoReview comparison)

GPU compute estimates should be interpreted carefully because graphics architecture, API support, drivers, game optimization and cooling influence actual frame rates. A higher theoretical FLOPS result is not a guarantee of better performance in every game.

Manufacturing and Battery Efficiency

A16 Bionic leads NanoReview’s battery rating with 95 points, while Exynos 2400 and Exynos 2400e tie at 86.

All three processors are listed as 4nm chips, although the manufacturers differ: Samsung manufactures both Exynos processors, while TSMC manufactures A16 Bionic. NanoReview’s battery scores are 86 for Exynos 2400e, 86 for Exynos 2400 and 95 for A16 Bionic.

The A16 therefore has the highest rated efficiency in this comparison. However, this rating is not a direct measurement of battery runtime across devices. Battery capacity, display characteristics, modem usage, software optimization and thermal behavior can substantially affect endurance.

The identical Exynos battery scores also mean that the lower CPU clock of the 2400e does not translate into a different NanoReview battery rating. It would be unsupported to claim that the 2400e always lasts longer than the regular 2400 simply because its CPU frequency is lower.

RAM, Memory and Storage

Exynos 2400e and Exynos 2400 have higher listed memory bandwidth and maximum RAM capacity than A16 Bionic.

Both Exynos processors support LPDDR5X memory at 4200MHz, with a maximum bandwidth of 68.2GB/s and support for up to 24GB RAM. They list UFS 3.1 and UFS 4.0 storage.

A16 Bionic uses LPDDR5 memory at 3200MHz, with 51.2GB/s bandwidth and a maximum listed RAM capacity of 6GB. Its storage type is NVMe.

On the published specifications, the Exynos processors support greater memory bandwidth and capacity. A16’s integrated hardware and iOS memory management are different, however, so the figures should not be used as a direct prediction of performance in every app.

AI and NPU

A16 Bionic has a published Neural Engine rating of 17 TOPS, while NanoReview lists a dedicated NPU for both Exynos processors without an equivalent throughput figure.

A16 Bionic uses Apple’s Neural Engine, listed at 17 TOPS. Exynos 2400 and Exynos 2400e both have dedicated neural processing hardware, but the cited NanoReview pages do not provide comparable numerical AI throughput figures for these chips.

For that reason, A16 has the highest explicitly listed AI throughput figure, but the available data does not establish a definitive ranking of real-world AI performance. Model support, precision, software frameworks and the use of CPU, GPU and NPU resources all affect results.

Camera, ISP and Video

Exynos 2400 and Exynos 2400e offer the strongest listed video-recording specifications and higher maximum camera resolution than A16 Bionic.

Both Samsung chipsets support camera hardware up to 320MP and video recording at 8K30 or 4K120. A16 Bionic lists a maximum camera resolution of 48MP and 4K60 recording.

This gives the Exynos chips a clear advantage in maximum listed recording capabilities. However, maximum sensor resolution does not guarantee better photo quality. Sensor size, lenses, stabilization, HDR, image signal processing and smartphone-specific camera software are also important.

Display and Connectivity

Exynos 2400 has the highest listed 5G download speed, while both Exynos processors support higher maximum display resolutions and camera capabilities than A16 Bionic.

Exynos 2400 supports a maximum display resolution of 3840×2400 and peak 5G download speeds up to 12.1Gbps. Exynos 2400e lists the same display resolution and up to 9.64Gbps download. A16 Bionic lists a maximum display resolution of 2796×1290 and peak 5G download speeds up to 7.5Gbps.

Exynos 2400 is also listed with 3.67Gbps upload, Exynos 2400e with 2.55Gbps and A16 Bionic with 3.5Gbps. All three list Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.3 in the current NanoReview specifications.

These modem figures represent theoretical peaks. Real-world performance depends on carrier support, signal quality, device antennas and network conditions.

Benchmark Comparison

A16 Bionic leads CPU and battery ratings, Exynos 2400 leads overall performance among the two Samsung chips and has the highest 3DMark Solar Bay score.

Source: NanoReview’s individual and comparison pages. Geekbench GPU Compute uses OpenCL for Exynos 2400e, Vulkan for Exynos 2400, and Metal for A16 Bionic. These results are not directly comparable across APIs.

NanoReview’s AnTuTu 11 scores favor Exynos 2400, followed by Exynos 2400e and A16 Bionic. However, NanoReview warns that AnTuTu results from iOS and Android are not directly comparable, so these totals should not be used alone to claim one platform is universally faster.

Geekbench provides a clearer picture of CPU performance. A16 Bionic leads single-core testing, while Exynos 2400 narrowly leads multi-core over A16. The Exynos 2400e is slightly behind the regular 2400 in both tests, consistent with its lower prime-core clock.

Real-World Performance

A16 Bionic is strongest for CPU responsiveness and efficiency, Exynos 2400 is the better Samsung option for graphics and multimedia, and Exynos 2400e provides very similar hardware with a modestly lower CPU clock.

A16 Bionic remains competitive despite being older. Its strong CPU rating, high battery score and Apple software integration make it suitable for demanding supported iOS applications. Its lower listed memory capacity and multimedia limits matter less for some users than its practical application performance.

Exynos 2400 offers a stronger gaming rating than A16 Bionic in NanoReview and supports 8K30/4K120 recording, 24GB maximum RAM and 68.2GB/s memory bandwidth. It is the more feature-rich choice for users who prioritize Android flagship capabilities.

Exynos 2400e uses nearly the same architecture as Exynos 2400, with the main difference being the lower maximum CPU clock. The NanoReview score difference is two points, so it should not be described as dramatically slower. Actual sustained performance will depend on the phone’s cooling design, power limits and software tuning.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Exynos 2400e

Strengths

• 10-core CPU and Xclipse 940 RDNA 3 GPU.
• 68.2GB/s memory bandwidth.
• Up to 24GB RAM.
• 8K30 and 4K120 video capture.
• Up to 320MP camera support.
• UFS 4.0 and 3840×2400 display support.

Weaknesses

• Lower CPU rating than Exynos 2400 and A16 Bionic.
• Battery score of 86, below A16’s 95.
• Lower listed 5G download speed than the regular Exynos 2400.
• Uses the same 4nm process as the regular Exynos 2400.

Exynos 2400

Strengths

• Higher CPU and gaming ratings than Exynos 2400e.
• 8K30 and 4K120 video recording.
• 68.2GB/s memory bandwidth and up to 24GB RAM.
• 12.1Gbps listed peak 5G download.
• 320MP camera capability.
• Strong 3DMark results.

Weaknesses

• Lower CPU and battery ratings than A16 Bionic.
• Battery score of 86.
• Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth 5.3 in NanoReview’s listed specifications.
• Higher AnTuTu score should not be directly compared with iOS results as a universal speed ranking.

A16 Bionic

Strengths

• Highest NanoReview overall and CPU scores.
• Highest Geekbench single-core result.
• Highest battery rating at 95.
• Neural Engine rated at 17 TOPS.
• Custom Apple CPU architecture and NVMe storage.

Weaknesses

• Maximum RAM listed at 6GB.
• Lower memory bandwidth than both Exynos processors.
• 4K60 maximum listed video recording.
• Lower gaming rating than Exynos 2400.

Best Processor for Different Users

Final Verdict and Ranking

A16 Bionic ranks first overall, Exynos 2400 ranks second, and Exynos 2400e ranks third according to NanoReview’s current overall scores.

#1 Apple A16 Bionic

The A16 Bionic wins with an overall score of 75. Its strongest advantages are CPU performance, single-core Geekbench results and battery efficiency. Although it has fewer cores and lower listed memory bandwidth than the Exynos chips, it remains strong in CPU-heavy workloads and Apple’s software ecosystem.

#2 Samsung Exynos 2400

The Exynos 2400 scores 73 and is the stronger of the two Samsung processors in this comparison. Its CPU and gaming ratings are higher than those of Exynos 2400e, and it supports 8K30/4K120 video capture, higher listed camera resolution and faster peak 5G download. It is an attractive option for Samsung flagship-oriented hardware, despite its lower CPU and battery ratings than A16 Bionic.

#3 Samsung Exynos 2400e

The Exynos 2400e scores 71, two points behind Exynos 2400. It retains the same 10-core arrangement, Xclipse 940 GPU, memory bandwidth, maximum RAM and video-recording capabilities. Its main listed compromise is the 3.11GHz prime CPU clock instead of 3.21GHz, resulting in modestly lower CPU benchmarks and gaming rating.

Winner Summary

Final Ranking

1. Apple A16 Bionic — 75
2. Samsung Exynos 2400 — 73
3. Samsung Exynos 2400e — 71

The central conclusion is that A16 Bionic wins overall through its CPU and battery ratings, while Exynos 2400 has the stronger gaming and multimedia specifications. Exynos 2400e remains close to the regular Exynos 2400 and retains nearly the same hardware feature set, with a modest reduction in CPU frequency and benchmark results.

Sources: NanoReview pages for Exynos 2400e, Exynos 2400, and Apple A16 Bionic. Data checked October 10, 2026.