When you hear “Xiaomi made a flagship SoC,” your first instinct is probably to laugh. But what if I told you that not only is Xiaomi dead serious, they might’ve just embarrassed Samsung in their own backyard? Today, we’re pitting the new XRING O1 against the Exynos 2500 in a showdown that might end with Samsung walking home in shame. If you’re here looking for the ultimate Xring O1 vs Exynos 2500 comparison, you’re in the right place.
Let’s break it all down and see how Samsung managed to get upstaged by a rookie.
XRING O1 – Xiaomi’s bold first step
The XRING O1 is Xiaomi’s first-ever smartphone chipset, and honestly, it’s a thunderous debut. Announced in Q2 2025, the O1 was developed in partnership with TSMC and MediaTek (who lent a hand with the modem and GPU integration). It’s not a mid-range SoC or an upper mid-ranger pretending to be premium — this is a flagship-class chip meant to compete at the top.
This SoC is built on TSMC’s second-gen 3nm node and it is expected to debut in the upcoming Xiaomi 15S Pro and Xiaomi Pad 7 Ultra. Performance-wise? It’s a premium flagship SoC, aimed squarely at competing against the Snapdragon 8 Elite and Dimensity 9400+.
Exynos 2500 – another let down
On the other side, we have the Exynos 2500, Samsung’s 2025 flagship chip. After years of underwhelming Exynos launches, this was supposed to be the big comeback. Spoiler alert: it isn’t.
This SoC was announced in Q2 2025, and is set to power the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 7. I seriously doubt if we’re ever going to see the Exynos 2500 on a serious flagship device. Now despite moving to 3nm and touting a custom AMD Xclipse 950 GPU, the chip still falls short of expectations in both raw performance and efficiency.
XRING O1 vs Exynos 2500 – Spec Comparison Table
| Specs | XRING O1 | Exynos 2500 | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPU | 2x X925 (3.9GHz)
4x A725 (3.4GHz) 2x A520 (1.89GHz) 2x A520 (1.8GHz) |
1x X925 (3.3GHz)
2x A725 (2.75GHz) 3x A725 (2.37GHz) 4x A520 (1.8GHz) |
XRING wins, faster cores |
| GPU | Immortalis-G925 @ 1795MHz | Xclipse 950 (AMD RDNA2) @ 1300MHz | XRING is faster and better |
| Process | 2nd Gen 3nm (TSMC) | 3nm (Samsung) | TSMC is more efficient |
| ISA | ARMv9.2-A | ARMv9.2-A | Tie |
| AnTuTu | ~2,700,000 | 2,213,797 | XRING wins |
| Geek Bench | 3017 / 9264 | 2012 / 7563 | XRING wins in raw CPU power |
| RAM | LPDDR5T (4800MHz) | LPDDR5X (4800MHz) | XRING has the newer, faster tech |
| Storage | UFS 4.1 | UFS 4.0 / 4.1 | Tie |
| Display Support | Up to WQHD | Up to 4K | |
| Camera Support | Up to 200MP | Up to 200MP | Tie |
| Video | 8K@30fps, 4K@120fps | 8K@30fps, 4K@120fps | Tie |
| Comms | MediaTek T800: 5G, BT 5.4, WiFi 7 | 5G, BT 5.4, WiFi 7 | Tie |
CPU
Let’s start with the brains. The XRING O1 features two Cortex-X925 performance cores at a blazing 3.9GHz — the highest clock we’ve ever seen in a smartphone SoC. Backed by four Cortex-A725 and four Cortex-A520 cores, it’s well-balanced and thermally aware. Samsung’s Exynos 2500, on the other hand, tries to look smart with a mix of one X925 and five A725 cores. But clock speeds are lower, and it lacks the brute force XRING brings to the table.
The XRING O1 has an extra Cortex X925 CPU core with faster clock speed for the CPUs across board. As result, it’ll outperform the Exynos 2500 by quite some margin.
Winner: XRING O1
GPU
The XRING O1 uses the Immortalis-G925, the best ARM GPU currently available, running at a crazy 1795MHz. It supports ray tracing and delivers desktop-class visuals. The Exynos 2500’s Xclipse 950 (built with AMD’s RDNA2 architecture) sounds cool on paper — but still can’t match XRING in real-world performance or thermal control.
Winner: XRING O1
Benchmarks
The numbers don’t lie. XRING O1 scores ~2.7 million on AnTuTu, easily outclassing the Exynos 2500’s 2.2 million. In GeekBench, XRING posts 3017 single-core and 9264 multi-core, while Exynos trails at 2012 and 7563. This isn’t just a win — it’s a knockout.
Winner: XRING O1
RAM & Storage
XRING supports LPDDR5T, the fastest RAM on the planet, while Samsung sticks with LPDDR5X. Both support UFS 4.1 storage, so it’s even there — but RAM speed matters in multitasking and gaming, and XRING pulls ahead with a very slight advantage
Winner: Tie
Display
Samsung wins this round. The Exynos 2500 supports true 4K (3840×2160) displays, while XRING maxes out at WQHD. While not many phones actually use 4K screens, it’s still technically an advantage.
Winner: Exynos 2500
Camera & Video
Both chips can handle 200MP sensors and can record videos of 8K at 30fps. Both SoCs also offer video encoding/decoding of 4K@120fps video, a feature useful for high-end video recording and smooth playback.
Winner: Tie
Connectivity (Comms)
The XRING O1 uses MediaTek’s T800 modem, which supports 5G Sub-6 and mmWave, along with Bluetooth 5.4 and WiFi 7. The Exynos 2500 matches the XRING O1 here on every count from cellular to Bluetooth and WiFi — giving it an edge for future-proofing.
Winner: Tie
Conclusion – How did Samsung fumble this?
When Xiaomi announced the XRING O1, no one took it seriously — until the benchmarks and specs dropped. Suddenly, the Xring O1 vs Exynos 2500 debate wasn’t a mismatch in favor of Samsung — it became a total embarrassment for them.
Despite being their first chip, Xiaomi outclassed Samsung’s Exynos team across the board: CPU, GPU, RAM speed, and benchmark scores. It is hard find areas where the Samsung actually outclasses the XRING O1.
If Samsung keeps dropping the ball like this, they might need to ask Xiaomi for SoCs to power future Galaxy S phones. That would be actually funny.
Final Verdict: XRING O1 wins
Samsung, it’s time to stop flopping and fix their foundaries— or start outsourcing.
Want more grounded SoC comparisons like this? Follow Inquisitive Universe—where hype gets checked and specs get real.
- Subscribe to our YouTube channel
- Follow on Facebook
- Follow on WhatsApp
- Join our Telegram community
- Participate on Reddit
- Find us on Quora