Samsung Exynos 2500 vs Xring O1
Across 12 measured categories, the Xring O1 comes out ahead.
I put the Samsung Exynos 2500 and the Xring O1 side by side to see how they really compare. On graphics, the Samsung Exynos 2500 runs the Samsung Xclipse 950 while the Xring O1 runs the Arm Immortalis-G925 MP16. Below I go through the CPU, GPU, memory and connectivity, then the benchmark scores, so you can work out which one is the better fit for you.
Where each chip wins
Samsung Exynos 2500
0 advantages
- No standout advantages for this chip.
Xring O1
6 advantages
-
38% higher AnTuTu score
29.63 Lakhs vs 21.55 Lakhs
-
24% faster Geekbench multi-core score
9,111 vs 7,361
-
19% faster Geekbench single-core score
2,660 vs 2,228
-
600 MHz higher CPU clock
3900 MHz vs 3300 MHz
-
Higher GPU FLOPS
5701.6 GFLOPS vs 4091.9 GFLOPS
-
Newer storage standard
UFS 4.1 vs UFS 4.0
Benchmark charts
AnTuTu v11 Total
Geekbench Single-Core
Geekbench Multi-Core
Specifications Comparison
Here is how the Samsung Exynos 2500 and the Xring O1 compare across every spec. In each row, the stronger value is highlighted so the differences are easy to spot.
| Launch Date | June 2025 | May 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Chipset Class | Flagship | Flagship |
| Manufacturer | Samsung | Xiaomi |
| Model Number | S5E9955 | - |
| Total Cores | 10 | 10 |
|---|---|---|
| Core Configuration | 1x 3.3GHz - Cortex X925 2x 2.74GHz - Cortex A725 5x 2.36GHz - Cortex A725 2x 1.8GHz - Cortex A520 |
2x 3.90 GHz - Cortex-X925 4x 3.40 GHz - Cortex-A725 2x 1.90 GHz - Cortex-A725 2x 1.80 GHz - Cortex-A520 |
| Max Frequency | 3300 MHz | 3900 MHz |
| Instruction Set | ARMv9.2-A | ARMv9.2-A |
| Process Node | 3 nm | 3 nm |
| Manufacturing | Samsung | TSMC |
| L2 Cache | 11 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | 16 MB | 16 MB |
| TDP | 6 Watts | - |
| GPU Name | Samsung Xclipse 950 | Arm Immortalis-G925 MP16 |
|---|---|---|
| GPU Frequency | 999 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Shading Units | 64 | 128 |
| FLOPS | 4091.9 GFLOPS | 5701.6 GFLOPS |
| Ray Tracing Support | Yes | Yes |
| NPU | - | 44 TOPS |
| API Support | OpenGL ES 3.2, OpenCL 3.0, Vulkan 1.3 | Vulkan 1.4, OpenCL 3.0, OpenGL ES 3.2 |
| RAM Type | LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |
|---|---|---|
| RAM Frequency | 4800 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Memory Bus | 4x 16-bit | 4x 16-bit |
| Max Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| Max RAM Size | 24 GB | 24 GB |
| Storage Type | UFS 4.0 | UFS 4.1 |
| Camera Support | 320MP | 320 MP |
|---|---|---|
| Video Capture | 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS | 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS |
| Max Display Resolution | 4K | 4K |
| Video Playback | 8K at 30FPS | 8K at 30FPS, 4K at 120FPS |
| Video Codecs | H.264, H.265, HEVC, VP9, AV1 | H.264, H.265, AV1, VP9 |
| Audio Codecs | AAC LC, FLAC, HE-AACv1, HE-AACv2, MP3 | AAC LC, FLAC, HE-AACv1, HE-AACv2, MP3 |
| Modem | Exynos 5400 5G | MediaTek T800 5G |
|---|---|---|
| Network Support | 5G | 5G |
| Download Speed | 9.64 Gbps | 7.90 Gbps |
| Upload Speed | 2.55 Gbps | 4.20 Gbps |
| Wi-Fi | 7 | 7 |
| Bluetooth | 5.4 | 5.4 |
| Navigation | GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo, QZSS | GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, Galileo, QZSS |
| Official page | Visit | - |
|---|
Benchmark results
| Total | 21,54,825 | 29,63,052 |
|---|---|---|
| CPU | 5,14,532 | 9,37,172 |
| GPU | 9,46,368 | 9,96,086 |
| Memory | 3,83,044 | 4,09,648 |
| UX | 3,10,881 | 6,20,146 |
| Single-Core | 2,228 | 2,660 |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-Core | 7,361 | 9,111 |
Overall Score
Each category scored out of 100.
| Category | Samsung Exynos 2500 | Xring O1 |
|---|---|---|
| CPU Score |
|
|
| GPU Score |
|
|
| Memory Score |
|
|
| Total Score |
|
|
Related comparisons
- 1 Samsung Exynos 2500 vs Apple A17 Pro
- 2 MediaTek Dimensity 8400 vs Samsung Exynos 2500
- 3 Samsung Exynos 2500 vs Snapdragon 8s Gen 4
- 4 Samsung Exynos 2600 vs Samsung Exynos 2500
- 5 Samsung Exynos 2500 vs Apple A19 Pro
- 6 Apple A19 Pro vs Xring O1
- 7 MediaTek Dimensity 9300 vs Xring O1
- 8 Snapdragon 8s Gen 4 vs Xiaomi Xring O1
- 9 Xring O1 vs Samsung Exynos 2400
- 10 Google Tensor G5 vs Xring O1
Discussion