Is Ulefone T1 faking SoC? Showing [email protected] instead of [email protected]

Several recently released China phones have marketed themselves as carrying Helio P25, but upon closer investigation, it looks as if they are actually carrying Helio P20.

Whatever the case, one of the worst transgressors is Ulefone, who has been marketing not only P25 but that the cores are 2.6GHz+1.6GHz. While these speeds are appropriate for P25, the reality is that the Ulefone T1 SoC CPU cores are running at MT6757CH speeds (2.39+1.69). Again, whether MT6757CH is P25 or P20 is debatable, but that the T1 certainly does not carry MT6757CD, and certainly does not have any CPU cores running at 2.6GHz.

In a teardown video of the T1 from Ulefone, we can see the ending values which designate MT6757 as “CH” or “CD” are conveniently rubbed out.

It’s difficult to see Ulefones reason for deliberately duping customers in regards to the SoC. And, they’re not the only ones who have done this with MT6757. Why now? Why is the current issue with P20/P25 so widespread; P25 is not some massive improvement over P20; we’re talking 2.39GHz vs 2.6Ghz on one cluster and Mali-T880MP2@900MHz vs 1000MHz. So why the deception.

One possibility is that the kernel is not properly detecting and running MT6757CD correctly, but this seems highly unlikely.

Note in the gallery below the first image from a Doogee Mix teardown which shows MT6757CH. Compared to the second image in the gallery from a Ulefone T1 teardown which shows this region smudged out. Helio P20 vs P25 is still somewhat gray according to some, but MT6757CH vs MT6757CD is not up for dispute.

We see Ulefone T1 is clearly MT6757CH according to clock speeds, yet faking it as MT6757CD with [email protected] (see Ulefone T1 AIDA screenshot below.) Hilariously, the factory could not even get the faking right, as we see they’re putting both 4-core [email protected] instead of one cluster at 2.6GHz.

Though it’s possible, I don’t recall a time where multiple brands claimed, for example, P15 when it was really P10, or X25 when it was really X20 . Yet, here we have multiple brands claiming P25, when in fact they appear to be P20.

It doesn’t make much sense. Possibly there is some issue with MediaTek supply of MT6757CD P25. So, why then didn’t these brands simply properly adjust their marketing materials? And, why is Ulefone faking the SoC software identifier as “CD” and as 2.6GHz. A possibly deliberate deception. It is indeed a bizarre situation when all factors are considered.

Additional phones which have touted themselves as P25 include Bluboo S1, Blackview BV8000 Pro, and Doogee Mix. Though these models have not gone so far as to fake their SoC identifier, they are properly showing MT6757CH.