Final Words

Designing an affordable phone is always going to have compromises. In this case, Nokia has hit on some reasonable compromises but gone too far in others. The lack of a proximity sensor was something that I didn’t miss at all, and the phone has no issue relying on the touch screen to know if it’s against your face for a phone call. This worked flawlessly in my experience, so it was the right call. The lack of an ambient light sensor was too much for me though, as I’ve come to count on it for using a device outdoors.

Another such compromise was the 512 MB of RAM, which is definitely one that went too far. It limits a good chunk of the app store’s game library from being able to be installed at all, which is just not acceptable in 2014. But again the storage of only 8 GB is no problem at all due to the included microSD card being able to add another 128 GB if needed, and Windows Phone 8.1 supports SD cards better than any other mobile OS.

The display is yet another compromise. Here we have a display which is almost at the top of our charts for accuracy, yet has a lowly resolution of 854x480. The lack of Glance screen support is another knock against it especially when the 620 of last year did include this feature.

One thing that Nokia nailed though is both the size and design. A 4.5” phone is a nice fit in the hand, and doesn’t run into any of the issues larger screened devices do with one handed use or being able to fit in your pocket. The phone is also nice and light, and with a great feel to it. I love the texture of the polycarbonate for this model with its matte finish. It never felt like it was going to slip out of my hand. The colors, as usual with Lumia phones, have a great range from pedestrian black to eye popping orange.

Using the 630 as a daily driver for a couple of weeks wasn’t a bad experience, and that says a lot about a phone with a retail price of around $160. Unfortunately for me, I found the phone had compromises in certain areas that were just too painful and would be issues for everyone. The first is the display resolution, which is just too low for 2014 and a device of this size. The second is the lack of RAM, which compromises the Windows Phone experience by limiting the number of apps available in the store.

I’ll admit my expectations were high when I received this phone after a good experience with the 620, and they were not quite met. Going forward in time, we generally expect progress and there’s not a clear case of progress here. As a successor to the 520, it does fairly well, and with the price of the 630 it’s much closer to the initial price of the 520 than the 620. The device is certainly faster than last year’s model and that’s a good thing, but the loss of features like the ambient light sensor and dedicated camera button make for a phone that’s not always a pleasure to use. If you don’t do a lot of gaming on your mobile device, you can get by with the 630. It’s always difficult to get the compromise just right, and in this case I think it’s very close but comes up a bit short in a few key areas. Price isn’t one of them though, and once again you get a decent smartphone experience for not a lot of money, but it’s just not the clear upgrade I was hoping it would be.

Software and SensorCore
Comments Locked

83 Comments

View All Comments

  • name99 - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - link

    I don't want to turn this into an Apple/MS/Android fight, but WTF is up with those BaseMark OS II memory scores? They certainly suggest something is very broken with the benchmark in some way.

    Is there any reason to believe that the 630 (a super budget phone) really has an awesome memory subsystem, substantially superior to iPhone 5S, to Android flagships, and vastly superior to the 620?
  • coachingjoy - Tuesday, July 22, 2014 - link

    Nice review.
    lumia 930/ICON review next please.
    Thanks
  • Rainer - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Hi Brett, the Lumia 620 features also a 5GHz-band (802.11 "a") as well as a VGA front camera (at least the European models), could you please add this to the Hardware specs in tue table? Thanks
  • austinsguitar - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    ugh these phones need to get the picture. higher equipment, better battery "that doesn't suck," and a friendly OS that doesn't stray too far to what many are used to.... i just dont think these phones will advance unless these things are met in FULL!
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Hm, thanks for the review.

    I would really like to see the resolution added to the display category in the tables. You already have a RAM/ROM space, why not have a diplsay size/resolution space? I haven't found it in the first page or second page tables where it really needs to be. Neither have I seen it while glossing over the article.

    As for the phone itself, without a front facing camera and an ambient light sensor, I'd rather spend 30€ more on a Moto G. This really needs to be 109€ tops, not 130€.
  • SC7 - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    Hi also Checkout this
    Latest Nokia Lumia 530 - Full Mobile Specification http://bit.ly/1ogA1S0
  • leopard_jumps - Friday, July 25, 2014 - link

    Nokia 630

    SAR US 1.52 W/kg (head) 1.25 W/kg (body)
    SAR EU 1.51 W/kg (head) 1.52 W/kg (body)

    i wouldnt buy it .
  • whatsa - Sunday, July 27, 2014 - link

    Pity you did not add the 1520 but just IOS and droid high end.

    I just amazes me that this BS continues

    Why not show the 1520?
    well on graphics it kills the competition.

    Come on Guys you can do better than this.... disappointed.
  • Brett Howse - Monday, July 28, 2014 - link

    I didn't have a 1520 for comparison is the only reason.
  • operaghost - Wednesday, August 6, 2014 - link

    If the 630/635 is the successor to the 520 why wasn't the 520 included in the performance results? It would be nice to see what the new model can do over the old model. Likewise, since I bought my 520 for $50 outright, no contract, and the 630/635 can be had for about $100, why is it being compared to the high end phones? I can see adding perhaps a single high-end for comparison, but I don't expect a $100 phone to beat out a $650 GS5 or iPhone 5S in a performance test. Compare other phones in a similar price range. Let's see the $100 Androids compared to this instead. That makes more sense to me.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now