Lava Xolo X900 Review - The First Intel Medfield Phone
by Brian Klug on April 25, 2012 6:00 AM ESTDisplay
I mentioned earlier that it’s interesting that Qualcomm, Intel, and others have identified and gone with WSVGA (1024x600) for their reference designs at around 4“. In the case of the FFRD/X900, it’s 4.03” WSVGA TFT-LCD. That works out to 295 PPI and looks extremely attractive in person. I find it quite hard to pick out individual pixels; this is definitely a high PPI display that’s right up there with the best. In addition, the capacitive digitizer is excellent; I have no complaints about tracking accuracy at all, again just like you’d expect from a shipping device.
The X900 also goes pretty bright, at 375 nits, and has good contrast at around 800. I’m impressed with the display again just because up until recently seeing good LCDs outside of anything but the iPhone 4/4S has been a rarity. The HTC One X and Rezound are probably the only other devices in recent memory that surpass, but suffice it to say Intel/Lava haven’t skimped here.
As you can see from the gallery above, the display's performance is pretty good. CIE shows primaries and secondaries are close to where they should be, but not perfect (but way better than AMOLED insanity). Unfortunately color temperature is around 7500K constantly, and gamma is a bit sporadic. It’s worth dealing with those inconsistencies for that high PPI though.
Outdoor viewing angles are also pretty good, basically what we're used to for LCD displays outside in direct sunlight.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
View All Comments
Spunjji - Thursday, April 26, 2012 - link
...so, suddenly it becomes more than mere opinion when you say the opposite? You have to admit you're on shaky ground with that line of argument."Could benefit from being thinner" isn't quite the same as "too thick". I suspect you mean the former?
UltraTech79 - Thursday, April 26, 2012 - link
Its not an opinion when its true. Phones should stay below 1CM thickness, and even 1CM is pretty beefy. Many people will not consider it due to this and not having a real huge advantage anywhere else.When all else is roughly the same, comfort and aesthetics decide a buy.
phoenix_rizzen - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link
1 cm is *way* too thin for anyone with "normal"-sized hands.Compare the aesthetics of holding/using a cordless phone, an office phone, a corded-phone, basically any phone handset other than a cell phone to a cell phone. Which feels more comfortable in your hand to speak into for more than 3 seconds? The one that fits nicely in the palm of your hand, that nicely curves with the natural lines of your hand (aka everything other than a cell)? Or the one with sharp edges, barely 1 cm thick, that requires you to use the muscles in the sides of your hands to grip, leading to cramping if you actually try to, you know, talk, on the phone?
Today's cell phones are too thin, and battery life is suffering for it.
fm123 - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link
Definitely an opinion. If someone wants a keyboard it's going to be over 1 cm. There are people that put their phone in cases and the result is way over 1 cm. The Otterbox Defender is somewhat popular, and the phone becomes almost 3/4 inch thick.FrederickL - Thursday, April 26, 2012 - link
On the general issue of "phone-thinness" rather than this phone in particular no doubt the same people who want the mobile equivalent of an anorexic catwalk model will then start howling about the battery life in their super-thin phone where there is scarcely room for a battery at all, let alone one with decent capacity. Perhaps we should be discussing the fact that some customers' contradictory "want my cake and eat it" demands indicate that the topic should be that some of the customers are too thick rather than the phones.
mrtanner70 - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link
I find the "a bigger battery is all we need" argument rather weird in the context of the thickness. It's not like Intel has not already considered this trade off. It's lighter than I expected though.The trouble with reviews like this (and this is not a criticism) is that SOC price is not considered, nor that fact that the mobile industry really would rather Intel, and its monopolistic/margin desires, stay away. Benchmarks (unless paradigm breaking) are not going to change that.
So far, I do not believe Intel has a single true design win, they paid for them all.
menting - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link
profit margins for ARM and Intel as a whole company, if this page can be believed, are similarhttp://ycharts.com/companies/ARMH/profit_margin#se...
menting - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link
we dont know what that phone will cost in the US, but for a phone that costs $420 with that performance???? ARM will be pissing in their pants right now if it had the performance of A15 on that phone.duploxxx - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link
Knowing that it can't keep up against already existing platforms introduced a while ago it is a failure. Don't see any reason why to buy this mobile phone, it doesn't have any added value against any other major competitor.not on price/power/performance.
so it is doomed before it is even released.
lets see what the tablet brings, but it doesn't look good at all. It all starts with the Atom which has never proven to be a good arch.....
A5 - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link
For a first attempt (Moorestown was always going to fail, so I don't count it :P) it really isn't that bad. It pretty handily beats the A9-class SoCs from last year while being somewhat competitive with the S4 running ICS. I'm curious to see if the Medfield ICS build gets better performance.I don't know how much Medfield phones will cost, but if it comes over here as a $420 off-contract device, that places it pretty firmly in the mid-range, where it would certainly be pretty competitive with the A9 devices that will be down there.