The Microsoft Lumia 640 Review
by Brandon Chester on June 9, 2015 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Microsoft
- Mobile
- Lumia
- windows phone 8
Battery Life
One thing I distinctly remember about the Samsung Focus is much of an improvement the battery life was compared to the original Galaxy S. Windows Phone 7 was a very well tuned OS, and it managed battery life very well. When the first waves of Windows Phone 8 devices were launched, I heard complaints about battery life, and I was very surprised. The Lumia 930 review here at AnandTech confirmed that there were issues with battery life on at least some Windows Phone 8. However, the Lumia 735 achieved a very respectable battery life in our web browsing test. With both of those results in mind, I was very curious about how the Lumia 640 would fare when it comes to battery life.
As always, our first test is the WiFi web browsing battery life test. Since this Lumia 640 is locked to Cricket Wireless, I'm unable to also test it on LTE, which is unfortunate. However, Qualcomm's radios have evolved to the point where there's only a very small difference the between power usage with a good LTE signal and WiFi.
With a 9.5Wh battery and Snapdragon 400, I had expected the Lumia 640 to last much longer in this test. It shares many components with the Lumia 735, including the SoC, yet the Lumia 735 lasts significantly longer. I can only attribute this to display power usage, and even that seems strange as the Lumia 735 uses an OLED panel which will consume a lot of power when displaying the large white areas of web pages. To ensure there wasn't any sort of issue, I re-ran the battery test and achieved roughly the same result. 8 hours is not the lowest result we've seen, but it's ultimately disappointing when you consider how long other budget devices like the Moto E can last.
In GFXBench's battery test we see that the Lumia 640 sits between the Lumia 735 and the Moto E. However, it should be noted that although these three devices achieve a much longer battery life than other devices, this is a result of their relatively low performance during GFXBench T-Rex HD.
One observation that doesn't show up during out battery tests is idle battery life. During my time with the Lumia 640, I noticed that Windows Phone seems to have an abnormally high battery drain when devices are idle. Even though I was only able to use it on WiFi and had no cellular connection when I wasn't at home, I still found myself having to charge it in the early evening. The Lumia 640's battery life is certainly better than devices like the ZenFone 2 and Lumia 930, but it definitely doesn't compare to the Moto E and the Moto G.
Charge Time
The Lumia 640 ships with a 5V, 0.75A charger. This is a lower wattage than the 5W chargers that ship with most phones, and it's significantly lower than the high power chargers that are now reaching as high as 18W. Something worth noting is that at least with the North American Cricket Wireless version I received, the cord on the charging block is permanently connected, so you can't separate the block and the cable like on most devices.
With its relatively slow charger, the Lumia 640 has a fairly long charge time. It's actually the fastest of our group of low end devices though, with the Moto E being noticeably longer, and the Lumia 735 being substantially longer at 5.57 hours. Not including a super fast charger is obviously done for cost reasons, but I do wish these devices would ship with at least a 5W charger. Thankfully, if you do have 5W charger it will charge the Lumia 640 faster than the one included in the box.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
130 Comments
View All Comments
Wolfpup - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
Out of curiosity, what's slow about the 521? It's main limitation is RAM I think, but then that mostly just means it has to load a bit more when switching programs.Of the mobile OSes right now I like iOS best (though obviously I like real Windows far, far better), but I pad $950 for my iPhone and when it broke replaced it with a Lumia 635, and...honestly it's nearly as good, for my use at least. The podcast program actually syncs with iTunes too, and there's nothing on Android that does that for real. (I've seen things CLAIM to, but they don't actually.)
mockyboy - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
Once I upgraded to Windows Phone 8.1, it became noticeably slower. Apps crashing, phone freezing, getting the resuming message for 20 seconds or so. And I don't have that much loaded on it.testbug00 - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
oh, in that case, a 640 should be fine. The issue you're running into is most likely RAM.testbug00 - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
Unless you're set on Windows Phone, going with a Moto X 2013 (http://www.amazon.com/Motorola-Moto-XT1058-16GB-Un... is probably the best option.Or, if you want/need SD card, get the newest Moto G. Make sure one of the ones with SD card slot, if Moto is still segmenting that.
From WindowsPhoneLand, there isn't anything that technically has a faster SoC that isn't $300+ iirc. At least, not now.
If you don't mind buying used, I would check out swappa.com, everything I've got off there has been great so far. hope it still is.
Harry_Wild - Thursday, June 18, 2015 - link
I have an iPhone 6 and it is super fast and has tons of high quality apps too! I use currently the iPhone 6 and Lumia 735. Both are 4.7". I would recommend the iPhone 6 if you can afford it! But the Lumia 735 is pretty nice at the now low price of $200. I purchase it at $300.jjj - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
It's weird how Metro makes the phones look bulky and crowded, the childish icy iOS rainbows are quite the opposite. Not that M$ should copy that, just the message.They also need to dump this kind of back shell. Nokia, iphone 5c, Xiaomi Redmi and many others turned this kind of shell into the definition of cheap and the way they implement it makes the phones bulkier too.
As for this device ,too bad for the SoC , guess for a startup like Microsoft it's normal to not have the resources to make it's software run on A53.
StormyParis - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
that kind of back shell does make an additional case 'which 75% of smartphone users add) unnecessary. I think the Nokia should be compared to case-equipped iPhone et al, and then the bulk issue goes the other way. I'm not a Nokia customer, but I'd love to have a similar design on my Androids.Callum S - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
Completely agree here. It's always been a massive benefit. They're normally thinner than even the most expensive phones with a case, that makes them feel cheap and fat anyway, or much better value and safer than using an alternative phone without one.Additionally, as someone who has very rarely used phone cases, I have always found phones with easily replaceable cases beneficial for both appearance when I have dropped and damage them (no walking around with cracked phone cases or backs like so many people with iPhones) and for when I want to pass them down to other family members. After a fresh install and a new $15 back shell it's essentially like a new phone for those who aren't too concerned.
damianrobertjones - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
Not bad at all really especially for people that don't care or ever need something faster.GlobeGadget - Tuesday, June 9, 2015 - link
My first smartphone was Nokia Lumia 800, it was a pretty great phone but it wasn't as great as the 3310 when it met the pavement... :(