Back to Article

  • Alexey291 - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Holy crap its like the same phone... but worse Reply
  • Drumsticks - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Blargh... I dunno. This is not too impressive. And why with the 512MB of RAM... I know it's the most budget-conscious of phones, but shouldn't it be possible to fit 1GB in?

    Also, heavier, less storage, less graphics, same camera, basically same display, and a (maybe) arguably better CPU. >.<
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Looking at the specs on this, it should've been called the 430. The 630 should've been the 530, and a new $200-250 design should have been given the 630 moniker. Reply
  • The_Assimilator - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Why a quad-core in the lowest of low-end phones? Rather double the internal storage and RAM. Reply
  • kyuu - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    You're assuming that they could've saved any money on the BOM by going to a dual-core solution, which likely isn't the case. Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    No idea what the cost difference is, but the snapdragon family does include two dual core a7 parts. Reply
  • ViRGE - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Because the Asian markets are all about quad cores. It's what sells, even if it's not logical. Reply
  • Roland00Address - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    What you say is logical and a smarter decision from a balance standpoint, you are not going to use 4 cores with a 512 mb design.

    Yet it barely cost more to buy a quad core soc vs a dual core soc due to how small a7s are. Arm says a single a7 core on 28nm without cache is half a square mm. So we are talking roughly 1 square mm for the two additional cores. There may be some additional die size due to cache but I do not know the cache amounts.

    Yet marketing four cores instead of two sell devices, especially in Asia thus it makes sense to pay the trivial amount more for a quad core. Especially if you can negotiate the price difference down due to volume.
  • Krysto - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    It's Windows Phone so who cares? Reply
  • JeffFlanagan - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    People who like Windows Phone, but can't afford a decent one. I'd think that would be obvious even to someone who's a little slow. Reply
  • JeffFlanagan - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Low-end Android phones with insufficient memory and buggy software tarnish the Android brand. I expect this to do the same for Windows Phone. Reply
  • bplewis24 - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Exactly. Reply
  • aryonoco - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Something that used to be true, but isn't really anymore.

    The Moto G and the Moto E have done wonders for Android's reputation on the lower end, and arguably provide a much better user experience than these Lumias. Android One (set to launch later this year) will push that same user experience down below the $100 line.
  • Klimax - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    So far hasn't happened with WP. Reply
  • BMNify - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    Windows Phone works smooth even on old Snapdragon single core with Adreno 200 and 256MB ram(ex: Lumia 510,610), so your expectation and comparison with Android is wrong. Reply
  • mkozakewich - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    Ugh, the thickness.

    This is interesting, though, in that it's like a phone from 2010 with the really crappy CPU and graphics improved. I just really wish it had a 720p screen. Aren't those common enough now to be price-competitive?

    $600 phones have gotten a lot more powerful over the last few years, but this gives us a good indication of how cheap those phones would be with (generally) the same level of power.

    Nintendo likes their $100-$150 portable devices. In a couple years, I half-expect them to release some kind of cheap Android phone with 3DS-like controls around the screen. (Or, knowing them, their own kind of simple OS only for Nintendo games and first-party tools and social apps? Hopefully not.)
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    What's the difference between an Adreno 305 and 302 I wonder?

    And I have to wonder if an extra 20% clock speed can make up for the deficit between an A7 and an "A9+".

    Still, at least it takes 128GB (though that raises the price of the phone...)
  • nikon133 - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    Doesn't really make sense. 4C processor in lowest end budget phone... but with storage reduced to puny 4GB (yes I know it will accept SD, but still) and 512MB of RAM. I'd much rather have 2C with 1GB of RAM.

    MS/Nokia are releasing too many variants of almost the same phone. Would they not reduce R&D and manufacturing costs if they unify all of those models between 520 and 630 into one phone? They could probably boost performance a bit, too.
  • Paul Tarnowski - Friday, July 25, 2014 - link

    I'd guess it's the whole higher numbers are better thing. That and RAM is really expensive right now.

    At any rate, this may sell well in Asia, but it's unlikely to make a dent in the NA market.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now