HTC Desire 816 detailed review

The latest phablet from HTC is not only priced well, it sounds good on paper as well. The 5.5 inch device runs on a Snapdragon 400 quad-core processor with 1.5GB of RAM running on the latest Android 4.4.2 update. Also, it seems to give a strong competition to Sony’s latest phablet, the Xperia T2 Ultra. So let’s take an in-depth look at the HTC Desire 816…

SPECIFICATIONS

• Display: 5.5 inches Super LCD2 panel with 1280x720 resolution (267ppi)
• Battery: 2600mAh
• Storage: 8GB, expandable via microSD card
• Camera:  13MP rear with LED flash, 5MP front
• SoC: Qualcomm Snapdragon 400
• CPU: 1.6GHz quad-core
• GPU: Adreno 305
• RAM: 1.5GB
• Operating system: Android 4.4.2 with Sense 6 UI
• Connectivity: 3G, W-Fi, Bluetooth , Dual-SIM

BODY AND DESIGN

The Desire 816 is pretty large device with a 5.5-inch Super LCD2 with 1280x720 pixels resolution. The pixel density is at 267ppi which surprisingly doesn’t look all that bad. The display is bright and contrast level on the display is excellent. Viewing angles are perfectly good and colours don’t fade all that much. The touch response is smooth and feels buttery smooth. The bezels above the and below the display are wide to accommodate the stereo speakers. There is also the 5MP front camera right next to the top speaker and the usual sensors and notification LED below them.

The phablet isn’t too bulky and weighs at about 165gms and is pretty slim at just 8mm. HTC has always been excellent in designing their smartphones and the Desire 816 is a neat looking phablet. The back is a bit disappointing with a glossy soft plastic finish which is prone to smudges and fingerprints. The back also has the 13MP camera and an LED flash with a metal ring around it.

The edges have a rubberised finish which extends to the front where the stereo speakers are. The right edge has two nano SIM card slots (Really?) and the microSD card slot hidden under a plastic flap which blends in well the design. The top has the 3.5mm stereo jack and the mic for video recording. The left side has the power/lock button and volume control keys which are made out of metal although a bit flimsy. The microUSB slot is placed at the bottom.

While the Desire 700 was a complete disaster, HTC has done quite well with the 816.

UI AND PERFORMANCE

The Desire 816 runs on the latest Android 4.4.2 Kit Kat along with the latest Sense 6 UI which we have already seen on the HTC One (M8). All the features and apps are quite similar although you don’t get the lockscreen gestures so no unlocking the display when it is inactive. You do get the new swiping features on the lockscreen where swiping to the left opens the first homescreen and swiping to the right takes you to BlinkFeed. You can also swipe up the icons in the dock to open various apps right from the lockscreen. There is the addition of new colour themes as well which makes the UI more vivid and colourful.

Sense 6 UI works very smoothly on the phablet and all the apps and multitasking is no issue at all. Ever since HTC launched Sense 5, we have been happy with how things work on HTC smartphones. Previous versions were quite memory heavy but thankfully the new UI has a much minimalistic approach and is lag free. HTC does add some of its own apps like a Kid mode, Car mode, Zoe, Polaris office and more. The phablet being a dual-SIM, offers dual-standby so you don’t miss calls or messages from any of your numbers. As always, BlinkFeed works great and we used it more often than we opening individual apps like Facebook or Twitter to check our timelines.

The Snapdragon 400 processor works quite well and gives enough power to the handset to handle graphics intensive tasks like playing high-end games including Dead Trigger 2, Injustice, Real Racing 3, and so on. Multitasking and apps used on daily basis work well and we didn’t face any issues or lags at any instance. To get a calculative score of the performance, we ran some benchmark apps on the Desire 816, including Antutu X, Quadrant Standard, Smartbench 2012 and 3DMark.

Here are the results:

We love how HTC incorporates stereo speakers on its new smartphones. Ever since the company had struck a deal Beats Audio, HTC smartphones have been offering some promising audio experience. We had loved the dual-stereo speaker system on the HTC One (M8) and the Desire 816 is even better. The speakers on top and below the display offer an excellent audio output which is loud and crisp. There is a good balance of bass, mids and treble which makes it one of the best speaker systems on a phablet device.

In the battery department the Desire 816 comes with a 2600mAH, which sounds enough. The battery backup is quite decent as one can squeeze out a lot of juice out of the battery. Thanks to the power saving modes on the phablet, we managed to get about one and half day of battery backup on a regular usage including a bit of gaming, listening to music and scrolling through various social media apps. The battery test resulted in a loss of 15%, where we played a full HD video on the phablet for one hour with the display on full brightness. This means one can continuously play an HD video for about six and a half hours.

CAMERA

The Desire 816 has a 13MP rear camera with a BSI sensor backed up with an LED flash and a front 5MP camera. The camera UI is same as we had seen on the HTC One (M8) but here you only get three primary modes; camera, video and selfie (front camera). You do get to tweak around with a bunch of focussing modes, filters, white balance, ISO, exposure compensations and so on.

The focusing system is quite good and isn’t sluggish. The camera manages to focus fast in well-lit conditions but does take some time when shooting in low-light. Noise is well under control, but pictures taken in low-light are grainy and lack details. Oh one tiny issue we faced was that the flash doesn’t fire if the battery level is low.

Check out some camera samples below:

Shots taken in different light conditions (Without flash)

The camera is also capable of shooting full HD videos which look good, although one has to keep tapping on the screen to refocus on your subjects. Audio recording in videos is well synched and balanced.

CONCLUSION

While we were quite disappointed with the Desire 700, HTC has improved vastly with the 816. With a better price point and way better hardware, the Desire 816 is a great option if you are looking for a mid-ranged phablet. Performance is great in its class, excellent multimedia and camera capabilities and the latest Android update, the Desire 816 is the best option in the mid-to-high range of smartphones.

If you are looking for other options, try the Sony Xperia T2 Ultra or the Samsung Galaxy Grand 2, both of which are priced in the similar bracket and offer similar specs. If you don't fancy phablets, then you can consider the Moto X.

Apple iPhone SE detailed review

It had been a while since rumours of a 4-inch iPhone started circulating. At the launch of the iPhone 6s, many had expected Apple to simultaneously present a smaller, 4-inch iPhone as a less expensive, smaller screen alternative to the iPhone 6 and 6S, and their respective ‘Plus’ variants. Six months after the iPhone 6s, the iPhone SE became official. And a surprisingly large number of people rejoiced, including me.

I have loyally stood by my iPhone 5s, now over two-and-half years old, and it serves me nobly. On an overall, everyday basis, the iPhone 5s is still a fantastic driver. Apps barely lag, I can even afford to keep my push mail notifications to every 15 minutes and not reset network settings, and it still works fine enough. Lags, however, have started showing up. The A7 processor is still reasonably fast, but is just not fast enough. For instance, apps take that split second longer to load, there’s always the one second of blank screen when I switch between different apps, and games reflect this even more.

Unfortunately, even after having used a number of large display devices, I’m only too used to the 4-inch form factor. The iPhone SE, on that note, was all that old iPhone users could have asked for. Powered by the latest generation hardware, the iPhone SE is the iPhone 6s on the inside, with the exact design and footprint of the iPhone 5s. Why would I not love it?

I’m not saying I don’t, but there were too many questions that prevents from calling it instantly recommendable. Here’s why.

The 4-inch Retina display
Let’s begin with the most debatable point here - the 4-inch display. From a standalone point of view, the 4-inch Retina display is as good as ever, packing in ample pixels to deliver rich, sharp and immaculate details on the screen. It is responsive and fast, and looks significantly warmer than the display of the iPhone 5s. This makes it less harsh to look at, and Night Shift mode makes it even better. Quality-wise, you’ll be hard-pushed to find a better one - brilliant viewing angles, ample brightness, good visibility under direct sunlight, and nearly flawless touch response, too. But, this also raised the biggest question about the iPhone SE.

Whenever I have switched smartphones, they’ve always been a significant upgrade in every aspect of the device. The 4-inch display is undoubtedly good, but it is not a whole lot better. Additionally, the screen size now does feel hindered. You need to scroll more when you’re reading, squint a bit to tap on the right tabs while within a game, and even when watching videos, it feels a tad bit too small, especially after residing in a world of smartphones where 5-inch displays have become a norm.

"The 4-inch panel remains excellent, but the size is simply not enough in today's nature of content consumption"

Does it make sense? Yes, and no. Apple has repeatedly stated that the iPhone SE is for those who really want a 4-inch smartphone, and for them, there will possibly never be another device that brings such high processing power within such small a form factor. That, though, will be a very small section of the population. The 4.7-inch display on the iPhone 6s feels just the right size, and it excels in terms of ergonomics, too. For first-time iPhone users, a large section of them will probably be looking to migrate from the ocean of Android-powered devices, where spotting a screen smaller than 5 inches is nearly impossible. The smallest that comes to my mind is the Sony Xperia Z5 Compact with a 4.6-inch display panel, and it is highly improbable for users of the Z5 Compact to look to switch to the iPhone SE.

For existing users, it is from the still-sizeable section of iPhone 5/5c/5s users, and some iPhone 4s users. From an iPhone 4s, or even from an iPhone 5/5c, this is certainly a respectable upgrade in every possible aspect. As for iPhone 5s users, I’m not entirely convinced, with the iPhone 6s in hand. The cost plays a major role, and we’ll discuss this later. But from the point of view of sheer usage, the natural step for most users of the 4-inch device is to upgrade to a 4.7-inch one. Yes, the 4-inch display is still excellent in terms of quality, but the size definitely feels restricted.

Build and Design
The iPhone SE is built on the same chassis as the iPhone 5s was, which according to me was the best iPhone design till date. It is 7.6mm in thickness, and weighs 113 grams. It has a familiar design and is built well enough, but somehow feels slightly less sturdy than the iPhone 5s. The tried-and-tested rectangular design still looks good, and the iPhone SE retains the premium feel usually related to iPhones.

Ergonomically, this is by far one of the best devices around. One-handed typing is a breeze here, something that we do not mention too often in our reviews. The sharp edges do cut into palms on long-term usage, but the pleasure of owning a smartphone that feels inconspicuous in pockets is a rare luxury nowadays. For anyone who is a fan of compact devices, the iPhone SE is as good as it can get. The only element that Apple has changed here is the colour of the logo on the rear. The iPhone 5s had a stainless steel logo across all colour variants, while the iPhone SE’s logo is of the colour of its make. It is a minor difference, but does add slightly to the flow of the phone’s design.

Performance
Apple has fit the iPhone SE with present generation hardware — the A9 processor with M9 motion co-processor and 2GB of RAM. We ran benchmarks on the iPhone SE in tandem with the iPhone 5s and iPhone 6s, along with the latest generation of Android-powered flagships, the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge and Xiaomi Mi 5. The iPhone SE leads the pack in terms of frames rendered in the graphic tests, and even heads in terms of single-core processing power. In terms of multi-core processing, however, the Galaxy S7 Edge and Xiaomi Mi 5 lead, powered by the octa-core Exynos 8890 and quad-core Snapdragon 820 respectively.

In real life, the iPhone SE performs like a flagship smartphone. It is a delight in terms of everyday usage - most apps open without any delay, Spotlight search is smooth as always, always-on Hey Siri does add to the functionality, and gaming is quite enjoyable. Graphics rendered look crisp and rich, and thanks to the smaller display, the hexa-core PowerVR GT7600 GPU has lesser screen area to provide for, hence leading to higher frame rates that aid smoother gameplay. The presence of 2GB RAM reflects here, as the iPhone SE is completely free from the split-second delays that were present when unlocking the device, switching between apps and other regular actions.

The iPhone SE is an able performer, and can handle multiple tasks with ease. For more detailed analysis, check the performance comparison of the iPhone SE. Coming to the operating system, iOS 9.3.1 is a fast, stable environment that faces slight hints of stutter on the iPhone 5s, but here, it is incredibly swift. While Touch ID does miss a tap every 10th time, it is not massively disrupting an aspect. It is, however, important, seeing the efficiency of Android’s integrated Imprint fingerprint sensor. To reiterate, the iPhone SE happens to be one of the best devices in terms of performance, running at par with the likes of iPhone 6s and Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, and even beating them in a few areas.

Camera
It is here that the iPhone SE does not remain one of the best. In terms of everyday photographs, the iPhone SE is decent, rendering true-to-source colours without any hint of oversaturation or accentuated contrasts. Focussing is fast, and shutter response is smooth. Unfortunately, while the photographs are not disappointing, the iPhone SE does not seem to be in the same league as flagships like the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, or even the iPhone 6s Plus. It reportedly uses the same image sensor as the iPhone 6s, although it misses out optical image stabilisation.

In terms of image quality, while it will suffice in terms of everyday usage and rapid shooting, the iPhone SE is not as good as the two devices mentioned above. It has decent levels of detail, sharpness and clarity, but lacks in low light capability as images tend to become noisy. While the front camera may have suffered significantly because of this, the addition of Retina Flash solves the issue of taking selfies in the dark. The iPhone SE also gets Live Photos, if you would want them. Check out the image gallery below for camera samples.

View post on imgur.com

Battery Stamina
While Apple has advertised improved battery life on the iPhone SE than other devices, it is still nowhere close to the best in class. Upon average usage, while I end up charging the iPhone 5s more than twice, the brand new iPhone SE easily saw me through the day, with about 18% battery left on Low Power Mode. This would deplete, if you were to game on it for about half an hour, and extensively stream music on the go. On our Geekbench battery test, the iPhone SE lasted for about four and half hours, which is strikingly low. It surely fares better on everyday usage, but brace yourself for dropping battery stamina upon extended usage, and the constant need of a power bank. Flagship phones like the S7 Edge and Xiaomi Mi 5 break the 8 hours barrier on the same test.

Overall
It sure is a flagship, and a powerful one at that, but the screen is what creates the dilemma. While there may still be a considerable section of 4-inch device lovers, the numbers are steadily decreasing, and with most of our daily usage shifting to videos, a 4-inch device does feel rather restricted. It is a bold, bright flagship, but the price creates an issue here. At Rs. 39,000, the iPhone SE is barely less expensive than the iPhone 6s. If you have the option of paying about Rs. 3,000 more and getting a bigger display with 3D Touch along with a decently ergonomic build, why would you go for a smaller display?

The iPhone SE may be the perfect upgrade for users of the iPhone 4s, and for ones who really do not want a larger smartphone. It may also be the last flagship-class smartphone with a display as small as 4 inches. If you qualify under any of the two criteria above, the iPhone SE is your best bet. For everyone else, the iPhone 6s is the smartphone to own. Like all iPhones, the iPhone SE is great, but it's about time Apple recognised its competition.

Check our video review of the iPhone SE here:

Lenovo Vibe P1 detailed review

The battery issue seems to be the next threshold for Android OEMs to pass, and brute force is the way they’ve chosen. The capacity of the battery doesn’t necessarily promise good battery life, but in most cases, it can help. So, when Lenovo announced the 5000mAh battery on its Vibe P1 smartphone, we were naturally excited. There have been many attempts in the past, but having reviewed the Gionee Marathon M5 before this and now the Lenovo Vibe P1, I must say, the efforts seem to be coming to fruition only now. In the past, there have been phones that promise long battery life, but none really go the distance. Well, that’s all set to change.

Before I begin, though, I have to mention that while the Lenovo Vibe P1 does provide good battery life, the Marathon M5 is still the pick for the best battery yield. It’s not just because of the fact that the Marathon M5 has a full 1000mAh of battery stamina over the Vibe P1, but I’ll explain the difference in the Lenovo Vibe P1 review ahead.

Battery
The 5000mAh battery really defines the Vibe P1’s priorities. The phone is meant to last long...really long. (See what we did there?) There’s one problem, though – while in general the Vibe P1 can go for almost 12.5 hours on the Geekbench 3 battery test, that’s still less than half of what the Gionee Marathon M5 can do. Similar results are replicated on a looping video test as well. None of that really matters though, since the Vibe P1 can still provide more than the usual battery life that we have come to see.

The switch on the side takes the phone from regular to Power Saver mode and vice versa

The reason for which I would pick the Marathon M5 over the Vibe P1 is that the P1 depends more on its power saver modes, to last long. The phone has a dedicated switch on the left side, similar to what we saw on the OnePlus 2, except that this one switches the phone from regular to power saver modes, which are quite limiting.

 
The Power Saver mode on the Vibe P1 is quite limiting

In the power saver mode, you can have six apps on the screen, none of which will be data-driven. Lenovo has allowed the user to choose the apps on this screen, but you can’t put your browser and the likes, here. It basically converts your phone into a feature phone, which I don’t exactly like. Samsung 'Ultra Power Saving'-type approach here may have been a better idea.

On regular usage, the Lenovo Vibe P1 should last you for about a day and a half easily, and unlike the Marathon M5, the phone charges quickly once discharged.

Display
While the priorities may be easy to ascertain, neither the Gionee Marathon M5 and nor the Lenovo Vibe P1 are compromising heavily on other aspects. The Vibe P1 has a 5.5-inch screen like the Marathon M5, but at a higher 1080p resolution. This is another area where I’d go for the Gionee, despite its lower resolution. The Marathon M5’s screen is simply more colourful and vibrant, while the Vibe P1 has a pretty dim display, not suited for usage in direct sunlight.

In fact, the Vibe P1’s dimness overshadows the fact that it boasts a 401ppi pixel density over the M5’s 267 ppi. On the other hand, both the OnePlus X and Lenovo’s own Vibe S1 smartphones have smaller and more dense displays that are also more colourful, and brighter.

Build and Design

The display on the Vibe P1 is quite dim

Design-wise, the Lenovo Vibe P1 is a near replica of the Gionee Marathon M5 (or vice versa). The phone has a metallic frame, along with a plastic back. It is slightly thicker, but also slightly lighter, than the Marathon M5. The difference isn’t enough to make an impact while using the device. Like the Marathon M5, the Vibe P1 feels quite premium, and is built sturdily.

Overall, the phone is nicely built and looks premium enough

Performance
While the battery life offered by the Vibe P1 may not be as much as the Marathon M5, the phone also puts a little more emphasis on other features than the latter. It runs on a Snapdragon 615 SoC, hence providing slightly better performance than the Marathon M5, but nothing that can take on the Lenovo Vibe S1 or the OnePlus X. The benchmarks pretty much depict the difference accurately, in this case.

If you’re playing a lot of games on your phone, the Vibe P1 would make for a better choice than the Marathon M5. Also, a big plus point on the Vibe P1 is the fact that it has a fingerprint sensor placed on the front. This is something that neither of its competitors barring the considerably-higher-priced Meizu MX5 can boast, and the MX5 doesn’t hold a candle to the P1 in terms of battery life.

The fingerprint sensor on the Vibe P1 gets a point in its favour

Camera
The 13MP camera on the back and the 5MP front module is another similarity between the Lenovo Vibe P1 and the Gionee Marathon M5. In fact, the camera quality is also pretty close, except that the Vibe P1 isn’t as good at stabilisation, and is prone to losing subject focus, under certain light conditions. Also, while the M5’s camera lacks low light performance, the Vibe P1 shoots much darker images under low light. Both the OnePlus X and the Lenovo Vibe S1 are far ahead of this phone, while between this and the Marathon M5, I’d have to choose the M5 once again.

(L-R) Studio Yellow Lights (2 Images), Low light. (Click Images to Enlarge)

Bottomline
It’s tough to pass an absolute judgement on the Lenovo Vibe P1. The phone is definitely among the best that Lenovo has produced, and it’s not a one-hit wonder like the Vibe Shot. If the battery life is your only concern, the right choice would be to go for the Gionee Marathon M5, but then again, you’d have to pay an extra Rs. 2,000 for it. In addition, the fact that Lenovo’s device has a fingerprint sensor is a big boon for it. So, if you’re wondering whether to buy the Lenovo Vibe P1, then go ahead, it makes a pretty good case for itself. If you have a slightly higher budget, though, the Marathon M5 is a better buy.

Yu Yuphoria detailed review

When your first smartphone is a runaway success, the consumer’s expectations from whatever comes next is automatically raised. This is the story of Micromax’s Yu brand, which started with the Yu Yureka, and has now follows through with the Yu Yuphoria. The Yureka though entered to a rather empty competitor-less market, while the Yuphoria enters what is easily the most difficult market segment right now.

So, did the newly launched brand follow up with an equally impressive smartphones? Here’s the Yu Yuphoria review.

Build and Design

Yu’s strategy with the Yuphoria is reminiscent of something many Indian brands have tried before — make your phone look like the best and it will sell. The Yu Yureka is a good looking device, probably the best that the sub-7k segment can offer right now. I’m torn between this and the Redmi 2, but the addition of metal on the side can easily sway a buyer towards the Yuphoria.

The rounded metal edges though add more than just looks to the device. Yes, the metallic shine does make it look better than others, but what’s more important to me is that it provides grip. If you’ve ever used a Xiaomi Mi3, you would be familiar with what I’m saying. The rounded edges fit right into your palm, making the phone feel very natural when you hold it.

What’s even more impressive is that the story of the Yuphoria's looks doesn’t stop with the metal part of the phone. In fact, personally I’m much happier with how the phone looks from the back. Barring the absolute premiumness and camera module, this phone looks almost exactly like the erstwhile Nokia Lumia 925.

The big round camera module on the back looks unique. Yu calls this the ‘Saturn ring’ design and it adds to the design. The overall design is sure to turn some heads and may even solicit surprise from those who aren’t already familiar with this smartphone.

For me, the uniqueness is what gives this points over the Xiaomi Redmi 2. In terms of looks, the Yu Yuphoria is a first in the budget segment, while the Redmi 2, though a looker, is not exactly an unique looking smartphone. It is more compact though, which would be a big plus for those who care for such devices.

The only complaint about the design of this smartphone is about the placement of the volume rocker and power button. The power button rests between the up and down volume buttons, but it is bigger than those. As a result, it is usually pressed on one side and tends to bend towards that side. This is a disaster waiting to happen and you may very well find the power button to be non-functional after using this phone for a while.

Display

The first real pitfall for the Yuphoria is in its display. While a 5 inch 720p display should be convincing on paper, the Yuphoria’s display is not. There’s a definite pink-ish hue all over the display, which makes apps, images and videos looks weird, if not bad.

It’s sharp enough and the viewing angles are acceptable for a budget smartphone, but I would go with the Redmi 2’s display any day, simply because it is much more accurate.

UI

One of the biggest selling points of the Yuphoria is that it comes with CyanogenMod 12 and Android 5.0. This makes the phone only the second after the Moto E, to boast Android Lollipop out of the box in the sub-7k segment.

There isn’t much by way of unwanted apps, although the inclusion of Baton seems fruitless since it’s still in beta stage and doesn’t allow new entrants. In addition, the YUniverse apps kept freezing and crashing everytime I tried to use them.

Performance

From our reviews of the Lenovo A6000, Xiaomi Redmi 2 and others, we’ve decided that the Qualcomm Snapdragon 410 isn’t a sizeable upgrade over the Snapdragon 400. That said, it is still the reigning SoC in the budget market right now. The Yu Yuphoria couples this with 2GB of RAM, which on paper should give you stellar performance.

Benchmark lovers will have nothing to complain about here, the Yu Yuphoria performs just as good as the Lenovo A6000 Plus, Xiaomi Redmi 2 and is better than the 3G variant of the Moto E. On benchmarks, the Yuphoria performs pretty much the same as these devices.

On regular usage, the Yuphoria will show some lag and stuttering after heating up. In the current 41 degrees temperature, that happens quite fast too, but one can’t really hold that against a smartphone. Under more controlled conditions, the performance is pretty much the same as its competitors.

It’s worth noting though that the phone sometimes froze on the multitasking screen, or while changing between apps. It happened only a couple of times though, so I’m not overly concerned about it.

In general, you can play for about 25 minutes before the phone starts really heating up and the lags start creeping in. This holds for intensive games like Marvel: Contest of Champions and Dead Trigger 2, while simpler games will run longer. You will lose about 14% battery in those 25 minutes, which is a little disappointing.

Camera

The most disappointing aspect of the Yu Yuphoria for me was the camera, and it is also the reason why the Xiaomi Redmi 2 remains the best budget smartphone right now. The Yuphoria’s camera falls closer to the Lenovo A6000. It overexposes images in bright sunlight and washes them out in indoor settings.

Yu Yuphoria

The camera is also somewhat slow to focus, irrespective of the light conditions. While low light imaging is more respectable, but it’s still not as good as the Xiaomi Redmi 2.

The Yuphoria has a slightly better camera than the Lenovo A6000 Plus and is much better than the Moto E (2nd Gen), but it can’t surpass the photos taken by the Xiaomi Redmi 2.

Battery

While the 2230 mAh battery on this device is slightly larger than the Xiaomi Redmi 2, the battery life is more or less the same. Compared to a Moto E (2nd Gen), which is aided by its smaller and lower resolution display, the Yuphoria doesn’t stand a chance. 

On regular usage, this phone won’t get you through the day, but will last for about 10-12 hours. This will change if you’re gaming a lot though. As mentioned above, the battery drops by about 14% after 25 minutes of gaming, which means there’s not a lot you’ll get out of it. It's an ok battery at best, just like the Redmi 2.

Bottomline

At Rs. 6,999, the Yu Yuphoria is definitely a value for money smartphone. It’s the best looking budget device that you can buy right now, if the camera isn’t a priority for you. If you need a good camera, then the Xiaomi Redmi 2 is a better smartphone. On the other hand, if you multitask a lot on your phone, then the extra 1GB of RAM on the Yuphoria will be more useful to you, at least as long as the other version of the Redmi 2 comes into the market.

Acer Swift 3 SF313-51 detailed review

Certainly we've all heard of laptops featuring mobile internet connectivity in the past. It's not uncommon to see a SIM card slot on the sides of a Lenovo ThinkPad, Dell Latitude, or any other high-end enterprise-grade laptop line. However, we seldom see them crop up in India. That’s partly because everybody gets their job done by connecting to a Wi-Fi hotspot network created on their mobile phone or portable router. Acer thinks it can do one better. It believes that even everyday consumer laptops can feature 4G LTE connectivity. Enter the new Acer Swift 3.

The review unit we received was the Acer Swift SF313-51. It was powered by an Intel 8th Gen Core i5 with 8GB RAM. Storage was taken care of by a Kingston 256GB PCIe NVMe solid-state drive. Rendering graphics was taken care of by an internal Intel UHD 620 graphics card. Windows 10 Home came bundled with the device along with Symantec’s Norton Security Ultra. According to Acer, this model costs somewhere between Rs 53,990 and Rs 58,990 in the market. Let’s see how the Acer Swift 3 did in our review.

Build and Design

According to the reputed Taiwanese PC maker, the body of the Swift 3 is made of aluminium. The laptop’s metal silver chassis is fairly sturdy and easy to grip in the hands. There are no sharp corners on the top cover and sliding the laptop in and out of a loaded backpack is an easy affair. In comparison, the new Apple MacBook Air with a Retina display feels more slippery in the hands. The laptop’s power brick is compact and lightweight for easy stowage.

Nice, clean look

The push of one finger is all it takes to open the display all the way from zero to a comfortable 180 degrees. When pushed and pulled with one hand, the display unit reveals little sign of flex. Some flex, however, is observed on the keyboard island when the keys are tapped hard. Bezels around the screen are quite slim and lend the laptop’s display area a contemporary look. While the tiny keys and quick-to-read fingerprint scanner are coloured dark grey, the area around the keyboard matches that of the rest of the laptop’s body.

Fingerprint scanner works well

In the one and only silver colour option that the laptop is available in, the Acer Swift 3 ends up looking plain Jane but in a positive way. It’s the laptop equivalent of that quiet, well-maintained mid-size saloon your local GP commutes in. It neither screams excitement nor goes invisible when placed among other models. That said, I wish the Swift 3 came in more colours. It would’ve given the country’s startup community a bit more to choose from.

Display, Audio, and IO

The Swift 3 features a 13.3-inch IPS LCD screen with a Full HD resolution. Content on the non-touchscreen display looks crisp and clear, partly because of the matte, non-glare finish on top. It ensures that documents are perfectly readable even when the laptop is used under bright lights in the office. Maximum viewing angle goes nearly up to 180 degrees both vertically and horizontally. Colours on the display seem to be fairly accurate too, with the backlighting not washing away any of it even at max setting.

According to our test kit, the display is capable of reproducing 95 percent of the colours in the sRGB colour space and 74 percent of the colours in the Adobe RGB colour space, which is not bad for the laptop’s asking price. In comparison, the display on the VivoBook S14 is capable of reproducing 93 percent of the colors in the sRGB colour space and 72 percent of the colours in the Adobe RGB colour space, which isn’t far behind. To sum it up, the crisp, colourful display is easily one of the Swift 3’s best qualities.

95 percent sRGB, 74 percent Adobe RGB

Sound from the laptop’s two down-firing speakers is underwhelming. At maximum, the volume is just about enough to fill a small two-seater office cubicle. Songs like The Weeknd's Starboy sound bland across low, mid, and high frequencies. These speakers are best reserved for error and warning sounds from Windows. Consider getting a proper portable speaker if you care for audio quality from your laptop.

Down-firing speakers are tiny and underwhelming

The Swift 3 comes with a nice array of usable ports on its sides. On the left, we see a proprietary round-pin power port, USB-A 2.0 port, a 3.5mm audio jack for headsets, and a card tray. The tray, which requires a SIM card ejector tool to be accessed, has cut-outs to accommodate a microSD card and a nano SIM card. On the right side, we see a USB-A 3.0 slot that can power a USB device even when the laptop is turned off, a full-size HDMI port, a USB-C 3.0 port, and a Kensington lock slot.

Always-on USB

You don't see a SIM tray on a laptop every day

Keyboard and Touchpad

The keyboard is probably the Swift 3’s weakest element. The keycaps are too tiny for a laptop of its size, which leads to frequents mistypes and stress on the fingertips. The cool white backlighting, which does not have levels, turns off after a few seconds if no key is pressed. This can be a constant source of distraction if your eyes are fixed on the screen and you’re trying to focus on the task at hand. I wish the power button weren’t placed adjacent to the Delete key as a press of the wrong key can lead to unintended Sleeps and Hibernates. On the plus side, the keys have a decent amount of travel and resistance.

Good precision touchpad

In most laptops, the function keys (F1–F12) can be reprogrammed to work directly or through the combined use of the Fn key using a simple switch function that’s found in the system BIOS. Sadly, this switch on the Swift 3 affects more than just the function keys. It inverts the operation of other dual-function keys, such as Delete/Insert, Home/Page Up, and End/Page Down. While this sort of setup may have been easier for Acer to wire, it ruins the typing experience for power users. This keyboard is not for users who do a lot of typing.

Power button too close to Delete key

The touchpad on the Swift 3 is a precision unit, which means that multi-finger taps and swipes can be performed without installing any third-party drivers or utilities. Windows 10 allows you to reprogramme these functions right within Settings. The two mouse buttons beneath the surface of the touchpad are fairly easy to click. The surface area of the touchpad too is sufficient for everyday use.

Performance and Gaming

The Acer Swift 3 does not come with Intel’s 8th Gen Whiskey Lake refresh of CPUs. Instead, it gets the older Kaby Lake R chips. The review unit was powered by an Intel Core i5-8250U processor with 8GB of DDR4 RAM. Storage was taken care of by a Kingston 25GB PCIe NVMe solid-state drive. Rendering graphics was taken care of by an Intel UHD Graphics 620 internal graphics card. Sadly, 8GB of RAM is all you can get on the Swift 3 as the memory is soldered to the motherboard. There are no extra RAM slots for future upgrades. There’s also no 2.5-inch hard drive caddy in sight, so that rules out the addition of a hard drive.

The review unit’s performance in our CPU benchmark tests was underwhelming. On PCMark 8’s Accelerated Creative test, the laptop scored 3371. In comparison, the similarly priced Asus VivoBook S14 scored 4516 on the same test. The costlier Asus ZenBook 13 scored 4457 in the same test. In GPU benchmark tests, the Acer caught up. On 3DMark’s Cloud Gate and Sky Diver, the review unit bagged 3768 and 3582. In comparison, the Asus VivoBook S14 scored 3916 and 3385 in the same two tests respectively. Read more about the VivoBook S14 in our review here.

In everyday scenarios, the review unit performed as smoothly as I’d anticipated. I was able to multitask comfortably on applications like Chrome, OneNote, File Explorer, Steam, Word, PowerPoint, and WhatsApp for PC across multiple virtual desktops. I was also able to open scores of tabs on Chrome across multiple instances without worrying about any lag or stuttering. Switching between open windows and desktops too happened without any noticeable lag or twitching. The Swift 3 is good for users aiming to browse, edit documents, work on spreadsheets, and play music and videos.

Gaming was understandably a strained experience on the Swift 3. Doom ran on Ultra in Full HD at an average frame rate of 11 frames per second, which was unplayable. Bringing the setting down to Low made the average frame rate jump to 14 and the game more playable. Metro: Last Light ran on Very High in Full HD at an average frame rate of 10 frames per second. At such frame rates, the game was a little more playable than Doom. Turning the setting down to Low made the average frame rate climb to 14 and the game a bit more playable. In summary, the Swift 3 can take on less demanding titles with some effort, such as Ori and the Blind Forest and Portal. But it cannot be considered seriously for playing games.

4G LTE Connectivity

Battery

The Swift 3 ships with a Quad-cell lithium-ion battery with a capacity of 3320mAh. Acer claims that this unit is enough to make the laptop last for up to 12 hours on a single full charge. On our standard battery benchmark test, the review unit lasted 4 hours, 37 minutes, which is quite a decent figure. In comparison, the similarly priced Asus VivoBook S14 that we reviewed a few weeks ago lasted 3 hours, 8 minutes on the same test. The costlier Asus ZenBook 13, on the other hand, scored 5 hours, 20 minutes on the same test.

In everyday scenarios, the review unit lost close to 40 percent of its charge in a little over an hour’s time. During the battery test, I was writing, browsing, and playing music through headphones with the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth enabled and the screen set to over 70 percent brightness. On an average, expect the Acer Swift 3 to return no more than four hours on battery power. A full charge usually happens in about one and a half hours. In summary, the Acer Swift 3’s battery life is decent but nowhere close to long.

Bottom Line

In a market that’s cluttered with extremely similar models sold by Asus, HP, Dell, and Lenovo, the thin and light Acer Swift 3 makes a case for itself by offering what others don’t: 4G LTE connectivity. It's what makes the Swift 3 an ideal choice for those who want a laptop that is truly “on the go” without relying on dongles and hotspot networks. Sadly, the bundled Ubigi internet service is a let down as getting it to work is a hassle.

4G capability sets the Acer Swift 3 apart

The Acer Swift 3 is a good laptop even if we don't count its big party trick. Packaged in a clean, classy metal chassis, it features a crisp display that's mostly colour-accurate and free of glare. The Core i5 CPU, though dated now, offers good performance. I only wish it had a more comfortable keyboard, better sound, and upgradeable RAM. It's otherwise a laptop you can't go wrong with.

ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming Motherboard detailed review

ASUS has built up quite the portfolio for its X570 chipset. From the top-of-the-line ROG Crosshair to the budget friendly Prime X570-P, there’s a board for every budget and the X570-E Gaming sits in the centre of the lineup. It differentiates itself from the X570-F Gaming by including an additional LAN port (which happens to be 2.5G), Intel AX200 Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 5.0 chip. It also has three full-length PCIe x16 slots allowing you to set up 2-way SLI or 3-way CrossFireX in an x16 or x8/x8 or x8/x8/x4 configuration. At `27K, this isn’t a cheap board by any metric but then again, with the X570 chipset, none of the new boards are.

Packaging

ASUS’ STRIX branding makes use of black prominently with red and grey being used for the accents. The packaging looks fairly simple with just the key elements being highlighted. 

Specifications

To view the detailed specification list for different versions of the motherboard, please refer to ASUS’s official website. 

Contents

Being a mid-range board, you don’t get a lot with the ASUS Strix X570-E Gaming motherboard but there is additional value in the form of the thermistors, Wi-Fi antennae, and extension cables for RGB and ARGB LED strips. 

Here’s the list of the entire contents of the box.

• User's manual

• 4 x SATA 6Gb/s cable(s)

• 1 x M.2 Screw Package

• 1 x Supporting DVD

• 1 x Strix door hanger

• 1 x ROG Strix stickers

• 1 x Cable ties pack(s)

• 1 x Wi-Fi Antenna(s)

• 1 x Extension Cable for RGB strips (80 cm)

• 1 x Extension cable for Addressable LED

• 1 x Thermistor cable(s)

• 1 x ROG Thank you card

Board Layout

The ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming is a full-sized ATX board so it has plenty of real estate to include a wide assortment of features.  

The board makes use of a 6-phase VRM design that’s spread over 12 power stages. You can see all of them covered with a heatsink and it even has a heat pipe running through it. The heatsink in question is made from two machined aluminium blocks and isn’t a well-spaced fin stack that we’ve seen on some of the other designs. Either way, it gets the job done with regards to cooling the MOSFETs. 

Since we’re on the topic of VRMs, it makes use of Infineon IR35201 configured in an 6+2 mode without any doublers. For the power stages, it uses Infineon IR3555 for the CPU VCC and IR3553 for the SoC. The former can handle 60 A whereas the latter is capable of doing 40 A. For the memory, it uses a Vishay SiRA14DP which is rated for 58 A. Overall, the VRM on the ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming is capable of handling the high current demands of overclocking even the top-end AMD SKUs.

The four RAM sockets are closely packed with release levers on just one side. Thankfully, they’re on the top, so removing the DIMMs shouldn’t be a pain and won’t require you to remove the GPU first. 

There is a lot of shielding around the expansion slots. We can clearly see that it maintains a clean aesthetic by melding the NVMe heatsinks with the dust guards. Underneath the dust guard lies the PCH fans which have become common on the X570 boards owing to the high TDP of the PCH. Blame PCIe 4.0 if you will. With the 3rd Gen Ryzen platform, the Processor can do x24 PCIe 4.0 lanes of which x16 are for graphics, x4 for NVMe and x4 for the downlink to the chipset. So PCIe full-length slots get their bandwidth from the processor as well as the PCH when all three slots are populated. If you’re going to be using just the two, then all the lanes will be sourced from the processor.

For the audio, the ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming uses a Realtek ALC1220 which offers 7.1 channel audio output and you have the usual bunch of “audio caps” with it. Also included are dual OPAMPs and the entire assembly together is called SupremeFX S1220A. ASUS has included a DTS software solution with this motherboard the way MSI tends to ship their products with the Nahimic audio suite. The DTS solution has three profiles – Soundscape mode, Aerial mode and Tactical mode. All profiles are geared to provide positional cues based on the selected modes. The last one i.e. Tactical mode will put-up an overlay on your game screen to provide visual cues for the audio direction. Certain competitive games consider this cheating, so be careful while using it. You never know when the anti-cheat engines might flag such solutions. As of now, you’re relatively safe. 

The rear I/O has a sufficient set of connectivity options. There are three USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-A ports, one USB 3.1 Gen 2 Type-C and four USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type-A ports but no PS/2 port. You can hardly find any high-end or mid-range keyboard with this legacy port anyway so there’s no love lost there. Then there’s a DP and HDMI port for your video output should you have an APU installed. A black coloured 2.5G LAN port and a red coloured Intel LAN port alongside which lie the SMA connectors for the Wi-Fi antennae. This is followed by the audio jacks and lastly, there’s a BIOS flashback button above the USB ports. Ideally, we’d like these buttons to have some sort of protection to prevent accidental presses. The entire rear I/O panel comes fixed on the board and there’s a lighting panel on the rear I/O shroud. The entire assembly looks quite classy all sides. 

At the time of testing, the board was still using AGESA 1.0.0.3 which allows the AMD processors to properly hit the advertised frequencies. The upcoming AGESA 1.0.0.4 microcode is set to further improve the all-core boost clock speeds and deliver shorter boot times.

Micromax Canvas Nitro A310 detailed review

Display & Design

If you've ever felt that the majority of phones are just variations of each other, the Micromax Canvas Nitro won't really change that impression. At first glance the Nitro looks like just another Micromax device with an undistinctive glass front with three capacitive buttons at the bottom of the screen. The story changes when you come to the back of the device as Micromax has used a faux leather back with fake stitchings instead of the matte or smooth plastic back it generally uses on its phones.

As ususal, the earpiece is placed on the top of the display and is flanked by the front facing camera on its right. The power and volume rocker are situated at the right and left of the device respectively. As for the speaker, it is at the back gets muffled when you place the phone on its back.

The Micromax Canvas Nitro comes with a 5 inch screen with 720p HD resolution. Micromax boasts that the the screen is oleophobic and anti-finger print but in my tests I found these claims to be false. The screen looks beautiful indoors but dull when you see it outside in direct sunlight even though it's not totally illegible. The screen looks bright and crisp while playing games or handling day to day to work.

Hardware & Performance

Micromax has skipped the quad-core and the hexa-core which is an understood norm in this price category and gone straight for the 1.66GHz octa-core processor from MediaTek. With 2 gigs of RAM onboard, everything seems to fly by until you play graphics intensive games or try to play a 1080p movie which will certainly heat up your device. The heating issue still persists in MediaTek powered SoCs and in turn will affect the performance of the device.

I tried games like Dead Trigger 2 and Asphalt 8: Airborne which ran smoothly with a slight frame drop issues. Compared to this, the quad-core powered Motorola Moto G (2nd Gen) performed a bit better in the gaming department. If you are like me and have your media on your phone rather than the cloud, the 8GB internal space in the Micromax canvas Nitro is upgradable via a microSD card.

The day to day performance on the Nitro is without any major hiccups and I couldn't find any faults beside the occasional frame drop while playing a high res 1080p video.

Software & UI

Micromax has kept the software very basic in terms of the Android operating system. The Nitro is running an almost stock version of Android Kitkat 4.4.2 and I don’t have any complaints with the UI. Micromax has made its UI a bit more minimalist and that has added to the good experience. The interface looks snappy while opening apps or multitasking and left a very satisfactory impression on me.

The only issue which I have with the Micromax Canvas Nitro is the included bloatware which is quite annoying. Most of the added bloatware are just web links to websites and don’t serve any purpose. On the home screen if you swipe left you will see Micromax has tried to copy HTC blink feed but I think this is an unnecessary addition to the UI. The silver lining in this is that Micromax has been generous enough to add Swiftkey keyboard as standard.

Camera & Battery

The Micromax Canvas Nitro offers a 13MP primary camera which is marginally better than the ZTE V5 my colleague Prasid tested a few days earlier. Micromax has used a Sony CMOS sensor with an f/2.2 aperture and added a blue glass filter over it by Schott, that's supposed to make it more sensitive to colour. However, we found that this makes the pictures shot by the smartphone take a cool bluish tint.

The front camera is a 5MP BSI fixed focus camera with a wide angle lens and quite acceptable for taking selfies and video calls. As for the video quality I was not convinced as the video captured came shaky and a bit low on sound.

Battery is the playing field which Micromax Canvas Nitro has mastered. In our battery test when we played a 1080p video on a loop for an hour, we recorded a battery drop of just five percent. Even when I played Asphalt 8 Airborne for more than two hours I recorded a mild drop in battery. It took me almost 14 hours to drain its battery under heavy usage. I may add the battery life of the Canvas Nitro is comparable to the Samsung Galaxy Tab S.

Bottomline

The latest offering from Micromax gives you power packed performance with its octa core CPU and 2GB of RAM and that on a budget. The closest competition in the price range is the new Motorola Moto G but the Canvas Nitro offers just a bit extra.

The best in class is still the Xiaomi Mi3 but that phone is hard to get, the Moto G is also a commendable option in the price range and the only one which gives the Canvas Nitro some competition. So, If you want to buy a mid range phone with outstanding specs, understated design and value for money that isn't the Motorola Moto G, buy the Micromax Canvas Nitro.

Gionee Elife S7 detailed review

Gionee smartphones have been around in India for quite some time now and with each new flagship the company tries to make smartphones slimmer. The Gionee Elife S7 is the latest smartphone to subscribe to this design philosophy. With its sleek body and premium build quality, the smartphone is a complete looker. However, we have seen Gionee phones fail to achieve more than average scores in other aspects, so will the story change here? Let's find out.

Beautiful design and superb build quality 

Smartphones these days are far more personal possessions than any other thing you may own, and the Gionee Elife S7 is one of the most beautiful ones you can own. The S7 features a delicate looking design of glass and metal which is quite intriguing. The linearity of the slightly pressed metal band around the phone and the glass back makes it a very good looking smartphone. Having said that the whole "anorexic" body does give the impression of fragility and may make you want to use a case.

Gionee has done a very praiseworthy job in terms of design as the slim phone holds a lot hardware inside. It boasts one of the slimmest 13MP camera modules I have seen without any extra protrusion. The power and volume rocker buttons which are present on the right edge have nice travel and offer good tactile feedback unlike many other phones I have seen in this price band. The micro USB port and the headphone jack are present at the bottom along with the loudspeaker grill which fits well in the 5.5mm thin body. This design choice however does have drastic effect on the thermal conductivity of the smartphone which I will talk about later in the performance section.

Good Display but bad UI

The 5.2-inch AMOLED display on the Gionee Elife S7 is just as good as the design. The colours are bright, sharpness is good and contrast ratio is obviously perfect since it is an AMOLED panel. Most AMOLED displays I have seen in the past are prone to exhibit a bluish tint but the one on the S7 is almost neutral. You can however change this since the smartphone allows you to change to a cooler or warmer colour palette according to your tastes. The touch response of the display is okay but not super smooth like we saw on the Xiaomi Mi 4i.

The Gionee Elife S7 runs on Amigo UI 3 which is layered on top of Android 5.0 Lollipop. Even though many phones which offer a custom UI on top of Android Lollipop allow Google’s Material Design to peek through, Gionee has completely removed any hints of Material Design. As a result, the entire UI looks clunky and rather unattractive. 

Going over the UI, first of all users have to do without an app drawer which divides the opinion about the UI at the very beginning. We have seen many such UIs in the past which don’t provide an app drawer, like the MIUI for example. But unlike the MIUI which is easy to use and learn, the Gionee Elife S7's UI is very unorthodox. For example, in normal Android phones you will find the quick toggle menu or at least the settings menu in the top drop down panel but in Gionee it is in the notification centre which comes up from the bottom. Now this would have been fine but this pull up menu gesture clashes with the unlocking gesture of the lock screen, and on the home screen the menu works only if pulled precisely from in between the navigation keys. The only good thing I can say about the UI is that it does not hang, lag or stutter and part of that credit goes to the new MediaTekSoC.

Performance is good but not the best

The Gionee Elife S7 is powered by the 64-bit MediaTek SoC MT6752. This octa core offering is a much refined workhorse than its previous generations. This particular SoC was also present on the recently reviewed HTC Desire 820s. The Gionee handles daily tasks, multiple apps and Full HD video content with ease. Gaming performance is not bad either. Heavy games like Brothers in Arms 3 ran smoothly even when playing for prolonged periods of time. However, using the phone for demanding purposes like gaming or photography does make the phone heat up very quickly. While the metal frame does cope well with the heat and dissipates it as quickly, it's still a drawback.

Check out how the smartphone compares to its rivals in synthetic benchmarks:

Now as you can see, the Gionee Elife S7 is not as powerful as the OnePlus One but does achieve respectable scores. Moving on, the 16GB non-extendable internal storage could be dubbed as limiting for some and at least a 32GB version would have been appreciated. The call quality and signal reception of the smartphone is acceptable even with a completely metal body. Sound quality of the loudspeaker or via the headphone is also acceptable as well.

Battery-life & Camera

Another problem which has remained synonymous till now with slim Gionee smartphones is the lousy battery performance but the Gionee Elife S7 changes that. The MediaTek SoC sips the battery quite efficiently giving the phone a nice balance between performance and sustainability. In our standard battery test, the 2750mAh battery scored an impressive 12.5 hours of on time. The smartphone gave me around 7-8 hours of on-time during a normal day with moderate usage, which is good enough. Gionee could have increased the battery size by letting go of the slim form-factor but then again that would have rendered the Elife S7 as just another phone from a Chinese manufacturer.

At the back, the 13MP camera is an average one and lacks the finesse of a flagship shooter. The images taken by the camera looked good on the 5.2-inch AMOLED display but all that goodness was gone when observed on PC monitor. The camera is unable to capture details well and the finer elements in photos look smudged. Most of the photos came out oversaturated, lacking accurate focus and uneven contrast. Dynamic range of the camera is okay but leaves much to be desired. Low light images are downright unusable with too much noise. The video camera however is slightly better but not good enough to compensate for the shoddy camera quality. The camera software does come with plenty of "pro-photography" toggles but alas they fail to make much difference.

Gionee Elife S7

Bottomline

The Gionee Elife S7 falls considerably short of the standards set by most flagship smartphone and it relies a little too much on its looks. However, while it may not be a performance beast but it's no slouch either. The average camera and the UI are two major sore points of this smartphone but they are overshadowed by the looks, build and respectable performance. So, the S7 is a noteworthy option if your requirements don’t include a good camera, stock Android UI and a microSD card slot. But if you do require a better feature set, the OnePlus One (64GB) or the Asus Zenfone 2 (4GB) are better choices.

Explore Gionee elife s7 at Rs. 24,700

Sony Xperia X Dual SIM detailed review

I’ve always been excited about Sony, and the technology that they work on. When the Sony Xperia X was announced at Mobile World Congress (MWC) 2016, the introduction of Predictive Hybrid Autofocus (PHAF) had a lot of us excited about Sony finally focussing on improving its smartphone camera. The company claims that it delivers 42 percent of DSLR camera sensors, and 36 percent of smartphone cameras are powered by Sony’s sensors.

The question, though, was not just about upgrading the sensors involved, but about optimising the technology. Adding to that, Sony has focussed on design and overall ergonomics, attempting to build a flagship smartphone that not only has enough power to tackle your performance requirements, but also feels compact and ergonomic in hand.

Admittedly, the Sony Xperia X is not an outright flagship smartphone. The Sony Xperia X Performance leads Sony’s 2016 lineup worldwide, although the Sony Xperia X leads Sony’s portfolio in India, at least for now. The pricing, though, places it in line with the present generation flagship smartphones, like the Samsung Galaxy S7, LG G5, HTC 10 and others. How well does it fare? Let’s find out.

Camera
The Sony Xperia X packs in a 23-megapixel, Exmor RS mobile imaging sensor, with RGBW pixel array, f/2.0 Sony G lens and Predictive Hybrid Autofocus, with higher focus point count. The model number has not been specified, but it is presumably an upgrade from Sony’s Xperia Z5 lineup. The same is reflected in the quality of colour reproduction in photos shot by the Sony Xperia X, which still remains crisp and vibrant, but is not as oversaturated on Intelligent Auto as previously.

Sony admitted that the Xperia Z5 did not have as good a camera as its flagship peers, and aims to correct that mistake. The Xperia camera offers manual shooting adjustments, including white balance, sensitivity and multiple enhancement modes. There are, though, a lot of restrictions. For instance, shooting at 20-megapixel, 16:9 aspect ratio will not allow you to choose any of the scene modes, and most of the scenes will not allow touch focus. You are expected to rely on Sony to have accurately nailed the automatic shooting modes, and while some of them are indeed optimised well, the rest are not.

In terms of photograph quality, the Sony Xperia X does well with colours. It does not shoot flat colour control photographs, but the marginally enhanced colour and saturation levels make photographs look crisp and vibrant. Photographs are not as crisply detailed but have enough details to look appealing on smartphones. In poorly lit situations, photographs are rather noisy and lack much detail, which is a deterrent in this camera module.

On to the Predictive Hybrid Autofocus bit. In our explanation of the technology, you will find what Sony has done with it. In practical implementation, the Sony Xperia X does not focus as fast as Sony claims. It is not the fastest in the industry, but is reasonably fluid and efficient. While the camera does focus fast, the total time take to shoot a photo is still somewhat slow. Shutter response and processing is fluid, and once you have switched the camera on, shooting is actually a breeze. The Snapdragon 650 has Qualcomm’s Spectra ISP running in the background, and Sony’s own algorithms concentrate in reading the frame for subjects and locking the subject to prevent disturbance due to subject movement or sudden jerks while using the device itself.

The technology may have been even more effective when paired with Optical Image Stabilisation, which the Xperia X somehow misses out on. In bright light situations, you may procure photographs that are similar in competence with the Apple iPhone 6s Plus and Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge. In low light situations, the Xperia X is barely passable — an area where Sony has been struggling for a while. Sony has also thrown in a 13-megapixel Exmor RS camera module to the front for better low light selfies, but somehow, the camera seemed to struggle with focussing in slightly dubious lighting conditions.

Sony’s major focus here has been in improving low light performance, along with faster focussing. Incidentally, Samsung had the same intentions with its flagships this year, the Galaxy S7 lineup with Dual Pixel technology integrated to the sensors. While the improvements under Dual Pixel is very visible, you will be hard pushed to pinpoint the improvements that Predictive Hybrid Autofocus brings to you as an end-user. The camera looks and seems like a mid-season upgrade to the Xperia Z5, something that stretches you hard in justifying the price tag that the Sony Xperia X commands.

Build and Design
The second area where Sony has focussed on is the build and design of the smartphone, and has fared much better here than the camera. The Sony Xperia X packs in a 5-inch, 1080p display panel with a fingerprint sensor to the right, integrated with the power button. As a result of the fingerprint sensor, the bezels are around 4mm in size. If you come across the Sony Xperia XA, and particularly the XA Ultra, you will clearly notice the change in Sony’s design philosophy.

What I particularly like is how Sony revamped the design statement while still sticking to its original design principle. The Sony Xperia X does not try too hard with metal and glass. Instead, it merges smoothly curved glass on the top with metal on the sides, and a sturdy, matte plastic back panel. Sony attempted pure glass with the Xperia Z5 Premium and others before that, but that may not have turned out too well. The matte plastic back feels very good in hand, and the glass on top fused with the metal rails and the 5-inch form factor make it an overall premium device. In terms of build and design, the Sony Xperia X feels like a classic Sony flagship product. The button placements are typically Sony, but I have never really faced a problem with it. The indented power button feels a tad too deep, and requires an additional amount of effort to be pressed, which is not an ideal situation. Sony has also stuck to a standard microUSB port, although an USB-C port may have improved its ease of usage.

Display and UI
The 5-inch Full HD panel on the Sony Xperia X is crisp, sharp and vibrant. The colours are sharp and great to look at, and the display is amply bright. It delivers good colour depth, leading to bright whites and deep blacks, although it is a bit on the cooler side. Nothing that the RGB toggle for display colours cannot fix, though. You will find this in the Settings menu.

Sony uses the TRILUMINOS technology with its X-Reality Mobile engine to amplify the colours, and the vibrance aids when you plan on watching movies and other videos. There is no colour shift in the display, even at very acute angles, and the touch response is smooth and fluent. I have not encountered a single missed touch or swipe on the phone yet, and Sony’s Xperia UI feels smoother here, with Android Marshmallow.

Sony has added new live wallpapers to it, but they are not highly responsive. The UI also presents many of Android Marshmallow’s Developer Settings by default on Xperia UI (like battery percentage details), which is a good element. I’ve always liked the shifting glass effects of Xperia UI, and on Marshmallow, the device feels even smoother.

Performance
Sony has powered the Xperia X with Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 650, along with 3GB of RAM and 64GB of internal storage. The processor is well optimised, and comes under strain mostly when you attempt Sony’s Predictive Hybrid Autofocus. Gaming performance is smooth and nearly flawless, with only marginal stutters when a lot of background activity is being done. But, the question also lies here: While the performance is good, it is not jaw-droppingly smooth or fast. The smartphone is functional, and takes care of all your browsing, social media, calling, texting, streaming and occasional gaming needs. It is not a multitasking beast, but is not a novice, either.

Having said that, at Rs. 48,990, you would nowadays expect a device to be a beast. The Sony Xperia X is a well-optimised device, and many may state that you would seldom need more power as an average user, but selling a smartphone based on the same processor and same amount of RAM as a smartphone priced at Rs. 11,999, is a bit hard to justify to most smartphone buyers. In a price-conscious market as India, the Sony Xperia X will be hard-pushed to find buyers beyond its niche.

In terms of audio, Sony has included its Hi-Res audio technology, and over wired channels, audio sounds very good. The internal speakers of the Sony Xperia X are among the best in its category, and while we are yet to comprehensively judge the audio delivery of HTC 10, it is one of the very well-balanced audio delivery from internal speakers.

Battery
On paper, the 2620mAh battery pack is one of the smallest. In terms of benchmarks, the Sony Xperia X survives for slightly over 10 hours. In real life, you can easily make the Sony Xperia X last for an entire work day of about twelve hours, and come back with 20 percent remaining charge. This, with lots of emails, texting, social media surfing, web browsing, occasional photography, about 15-20 minutes of gaming and streaming 30 minutes worth videos on YouTube. Sony has optimised power consumption on the device, and this is a very good thing to have done. It is slightly above the industry standard of battery life, and is not as extensive as a Xiaomi Redmi Note 3, but will see you through the day. It's not ideal battery performance from a smartphone, but it's better than many.

Bottomline
The Sony Xperia X has its strengths. It has a great display, decent performance, sublime build and decent battery life. Its main point, the camera, is yet to be as well optimised as Sony would have hoped, and at Rs. 48,990, the Sony Xperia X just does not have enough oomph to wow me. It is a good smartphone, but not one that would startle you.

Sony is on a mission of playing to its strengths, and while the Sony Xperia X is a step forward, there is still a lot that holds it back. Maybe the Sony Xperia X Performance would have been a better representation of what Sony’s path to innovation stands for, but it is not being launched in India, yet. 

Nokia 2.2 detailed review

HMD Global Oy’s smartphone launches for 2019 seem to be something of a slow burn for the popular Nokia brand. After showcasing a few models at the Mobile World Congress in February, it went about releasing them in certain markets in a slow yet steady manner. Fortunately, India is one of those markets and we’ve just got our hands on yet another Nokia x.2 model. This one, however, is the cheapest Nokia smartphone you can get without getting into the Android Go universe. It’s the Nokia 2.2.

A few weeks ago, we reviewed the Nokia 4.2, which was the brand’s first launch in India for this year. A little after that, we reviewed the Nokia 3.2. We concluded that it makes more sense to spend a few more hundreds and invest in the more refined Nokia 4.2, unless getting a larger display was the ultimate goal of the phone buyer. Where does the cheaper Nokia 2.2 stand then? It’s got a MediaTek Helio A22 chipset with up to 3GB of RAM. Let’s find out.

Build and Design

According to the smartphone's product page, the Nokia 2.2 is “comprised of a solid polycarbonate body” that has “a high gloss finish”. In reality, the Nokia 2.2 looks and plays the part of a budget smartphone with very ordinary levels of build and design. The Nokia 2.2's glossy back panel seems sturdy and presentable in the hands but not particularly strong or eye-catching. Drumming idly on the back panel with your fingers causes a hollow plasticky sound to emanate from the back panel. You'll want to buy a bottle of Colin with this phone because the back panel is a palm-sized magnet for fingerprints and smudges.

Being a budget smartphone, the Nokia 2.2 does not get a dual-camera setup on the back. Instead, it gets a modest single-sensor shooter on the back with a single LED flash. The top side of the Nokia 2.2 is home to a 3.5mm audio jack but that’s it. There’s no secondary microphone anywhere in the vicinity. The left side of the phone houses a dedicated Google Assistant key, which, by default, fires up the virtual assistant even when the screen is turned off. The bottom side of the Nokia 2.2 gets a microUSB port and the primary microphone. The right side is home to the power button and volume rocker, which are a little hard to press because of the steep inward curvature of the body.

In addition, the lower right side has a tiny tab with which the user can remove the back panel entirely. On the inside, we see two cards slots on either side, one of which houses the primary SIM card and a microSD card. The other slot houses the secondary SIM card. Most of the space inside is occupied by a user-removable lithium-ion polymer battery. Named HQ510, the battery has a rated capacity of 2920mAh. It goes without saying that the Nokia 2.2 does not get an IP rating for water and dust resistance. Unlike its brethren, it does not get a notification light. In summary, the Nokia 2.2 has a pretty decent build and design for its price.

Display and Audio

The size of the Nokia 2.2’s display is the same as that on the costlier Nokia 4.2. It’s a 5.71-inch LCD panel with a resolution of 720 x 120 pixels. The top portion of the display is home to what Nokia likes to call a “Selfie notch”. In simpler words, there’s a tiny circular notch at the top for the phone’s single selfie camera. Thanks to Android 9’s native support for display notches, bundled apps like YouTube play nicely with the protrusion. While games like Asphalt 9 fill up the screen area around the notch, games like PUBG Mobile don’t. It’s a trend we’ll all have to live with, whether we like notches or not.

Though the Nokia 2.2 appears to share its display with the older Nokia 4.2, there’s a noticeable drop in quality on the cheaper unit. Colours on the Nokia 2.2’s display look a tad darker than they are in reality. Brightness, according to our test kit, ranges all the way from 5 to 666 LUX, which is plenty enough for viewing in most environments. Like the back panel, the display has a glossy finish, which makes the surface easily prone to smudges and fingerprints. The aforementioned bottle of Colin and a sheet of tissue paper should go a long way in correcting the undesirable “glossy panel” effect.

If you’re buying the Nokia 2.2 for good audio, prepare to be disappointed. It has a single loudspeaker on the back panel, which is decent for calls, ringtones, and alarms but no good for music. Sound from the tiny driver is muddled and sometimes unclear. Accidentally placing a finger or palm over the speaker grille can mute the sound output almost entirely. Luckily, there’s a small bump around the grille to give the phone some lift when it’s placed on a tabletop surface. But if the phone is lost somewhere between your bed, blanket, and pillow, there’s a chance you’ll end up missing your morning alarm.

Performance

The Nokia 2 and Nokia 2.1 relied on a Qualcomm Snapdragon chipset (the Snapdragon 212 and Snapdragon 425 respectively) but the Nokia 2.2 breaks that trend and employs instead a MediaTek Helios A22 chipset. Built on a 12-nanometre process, the Helios A22 offers four ARM Cortex-A53 CPU cores at 2.0GHz. The graphics processing unit onboard is a PowerVR GE8320, which, based on our experience with the review unit, feels a tad more responsive than the Adreno 504 on the Nokia 3.2’s Snapdragon 429 chip. The Nokia 2.2 is offered in two variants: one with 2GB RAM + 16GB internal storage (Rs 6,999) and another with 3GB RAM + 32GB internal storage (Rs 7,999). Our review unit was of course the latter.

The Nokia 2.2 review unit fared more or less as decently as the Nokia 3.2. On AnTuTu 7.0, the unit scored 61554 points, where the Nokia 3.2 scored 63903. Geekbench refused to run on the Nokia 2.2 owing to server connectivity issues. On 3DMark’s Sling Shot, the Nokia 2.2 scored 440 points. In comparison, the Nokia 3.2 and Nokia 4.2 bagged 415 and 821 on the same test respectively. On PCMark Storage, the Nokia 2.2 (with its score of 7069) beat the Nokia 3.2 (5574) and the Nokia 4.2 (6965).

Nokia 2.2 failed to run Geekbench 4 benchmark tests

In everyday scenarios, the Nokia 2.2 review unit was almost a pain to use. Right from the get-go (initial Android setup, i.e.), the phone was slow to respond. Bringing up the default keyboard (Gboard) would take up to four seconds in general. Everyday apps, such as YouTube and Chrome, would take about four to six seconds on an average to be launched and ready for use. Pressing the dedicated Google Assistant key would sometimes result in nothing for about three or four seconds. In summary, get the Nokia 2.2 if you don’t mind waiting for things to happen on your phone.

Gaming on the review unit was an equally painful and disappointing experience. According to our Gamebench metrics tool, Asphalt 9 ran at a median frame rate of 10 frames per second, and PUBG Mobile, 15 frames per second on forced low graphics settings. Playing either game was a challenge. The frames moved at a noticeably low rate and made controlling the player a difficult task. It was neither thrilling nor entertaining to play a game on the Nokia 2.2. It’s best to go with simpler titles on this phone, such as 2048 and Candy Crush Saga.

Software

The Nokia 2.2 is the cheapest model from the Finnish phone maker that runs Android One. Models priced below it get the simpler and lighter Android Go. As is the case with any modern Nokia smartphone running Android One, the Nokia 2.2 gets the latest near-stock version of Android, version 9 (Pie). It also gets the promise of regular software updated for up to two years. The UI is clean and easy to use. The app drawer is free of bloatware, so those who prefer stock Android or anything close to it will appreciate it.

The pill-based navigation that was introduced by Google in Android 9 is turned on by default. The UI includes the option to switch to a dark device theme in Settings, which should please those who prefer white text on a dark background. It’s worth noting that this theme setting is not exactly system-wide and that it only changes the appearance of some system elements, such as the notification drawer.

Camera

While many of today’s smartphones are seen with at least two cameras on the back panel, the Nokia 2.2 is seen with a modest single shooter on its back panel. It’s a 13-megapixel 1.12um sensor with an aperture of f/2.2 and autofocus. It’s accompanied by a single LED flash that doubles as the phone’s torch. The camera on the front is a 5-megapixel unit that’s ensconced in the phone’s “Selfie notch”. The default camera app on the Nokia 2.2 features modes such as HDR, panorama, low-light enhancement, time lapse, beautification, and Google Lens.

Just one camera on the back

Photos taken in daylight through the Nokia 2.2’s primary (and only) sensor are somewhat dull and lacking in detail. Colours too appear faded and washed out. For example, the leaves on a tree seem drier than they are. Zooming in reveals the loss in detail and focus in many elements of a frame. Photos taken indoors however, are mostly noisy and colourless. Shots taken inside say, a conference room, blur easily. Lowlight photos are grainy and blurry and are hence best avoided. Selfies, on the other hand, appear significantly sharper around the main subject, though they too could do with more colour. They turn noisy and blurry under low light just as much as regular shots through the rear camera.

Normal mode, outdoors, daylight

Normal mode, outdoors, daylight

Normal mode, indoors, regular indoor lighting

Normal mode, indoors, slightly low light

Normal mode, indoors, low light

Selfie camera, indoors, regular indoor lighting

Selfie camera, indoors, low light

The default camera app is slow to react and nearly unusable. On many occasions, the app on the review unit stalled and closed itself when I tried to view a photo that was taken a few minutes ago. Switching between photo and video modes takes nearly two seconds to happen. A “beauty” slider can be set for both regular photos and selfies. All in all, the Nokia 2.2 cannot be considered for its optical prowess. If your budget can be stretched to accommodate a Redmi 7 instead of the Nokia 2.2, your mobile photography experience should improve significantly. You can read more about the Redmi 7 and its camera quality here.

Battery

The battery setup on the Nokia 2.2 is rather unique. Like Nokia models of yore, the Nokia 2.2 has a user-removable battery. The battery on the review unit bore the model number HQ510 and had a rated capacity of 2920mAh. A few years ago, users whose phone featured a user-removable battery had the option of replacing the unit themselves when the battery wore old. But at the moment, it’s hard to say if it’s an advantage for the Nokia 2.2 because a Google search of the model number returns very little usable information. We’re not sure if Nokia will sell the battery online.

According to our standard battery benchmark test, the Nokia 2.2 scored 7 hours, 31 minutes. In comparison, the Nokia 4.2 and Redmi 7 scored 8 hours, 50 minutes and 9 hours, 5 minutes on the same test respectively. In everyday use scenarios, the Nokia 2.2 review unit lasted a little over a day with moderate use, which included some thirty minutes of gaming, twenty minutes of browsing, and a few app installs. When the phone remained in my bag unused for two full days, the battery dropped from near full to 30 percent. Charging from 10 percent back to full took nearly two full hours on the standard bundled charger. In summary, the Nokia 2.2 has a decent battery life but could have done with better.

Bottom Line

The Nokia 2.2 entered the budget smartphone market with a price tag of Rs 7,999 (for the 3GB RAM/32GB storage variant) at a time when its more sophisticated brother, the Nokia 4.2 received an updated price of Rs 10,490 (for the similar 3GB RAM/32GB storage variant). While you might save a couple of thousand rupees with the Nokia 2.2, you’ll miss out on a lot in terms of features and quality. Performance too takes a hit with the Nokia 2.2’s weak MediaTek Helio A22 chipset.

Nokia 2.2, Nokia 4.2 Product Page

When compared with phones like the slightly costlier Redmi 7, the Nokia 2.2 has little to set itself apart with, except for the fact that it comes with Android One. Though it promises timely updates and a clean stock Android-like UI, it renders itself nearly unusable because of the phone’s underpowered chipset. Forget the Nokia 2.2; get the beefier Nokia 4.2, or the Redmi 7.