|
|
Storage
Sensors
|
| ||||||||||
gps | Assisted GPS | vs | Assisted GPS | Have assisted GPS | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
accelerometer | Yes | vs | Yes | Both include an accelerometer | |||||||
compass | Yes | vs | Yes | Both have integrated compasses | |||||||
gyroscope | No | vs | Yes |
Battery
|
| ||||||||||
talk time | 13 hours | vs | 14 hours | Very long talk time | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
standby time | 11 days | vs | 20,4 days | The Omnia W has good standby time, but the Lumia 800 is average | |||||||
battery capacity | 1 450 mAh | vs | 1 500 mAh | Average capacity batteries | |||||||
technology | Unknown | vs | Lithium Ion |
Size
|
| ||||||||||
weight | 142 g | vs | 115 g | The Omnia W is quite light, but the Lumia 800 is heavier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
thickness | 12 mm | vs | 11 mm | The Omnia W is thin, while the Lumia 800 is just average thickness | |||||||
size | 61x116x12 mm | vs | 58x116x10 mm | The Omnia W is fairly small, but the Lumia 800 is not far behind | |||||||
waterproof | No | vs | No | Neither are waterproof |
Screen
|
| ||||||||||
screen size | 3,7" | vs | 3,7" | Average sized screens | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
screen resolution | 800x480 | vs | 800x480 | Average screen resolution | |||||||
screen ppi | 252 PPI | vs | 252 PPI | Average display of text, images and video | |||||||
screen type | AMOLED | vs | Super AMOLED | The Omnia W as a Super AMOLED screen which is even more vivid, the Lumia 800 doesn't | |||||||
touchscreen type | Capacitive | vs | Capacitive | Touchscreen |
Network
|
| ||||||||||
network | HSDPA (14,4 mbps) | vs | HSDPA (14,4 mbps) | Average data speeds | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
generation | 3.5G | vs | 3.5G | Standard network technology | |||||||
download speed | 1,22 mbps | vs | 1,49 mbps | Average actual download speeds | |||||||
upload speed | 0,37 mbps | vs | 0,47 mbps | Somewhat slow actual upload speeds | |||||||
network latency | 352 ms | vs | 139 ms | The Omnia W has average network latency, but the Lumia 800's is worse than most | |||||||
wifi | 802.11n (150 mbps) | vs | 802.11n (150 mbps) | Average wifi speed | |||||||
wifi hotspot | No | vs | No | Neither have wifi hotspots for wireless tethering | |||||||
nfc | No | vs | No | Neither support NFC for wireless transactions | |||||||
bluetooth | 2,1 | vs | 2,1 | Average bluetooth support |
Photo & Video
|
| ||||||||||
camera | 8 MP | vs | 5 MP | They both have cameras | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
flash | Yes | vs | Yes | Both have camera flashes | |||||||
secondary camera | Unknown | vs | 0,3 MP | ||||||||
movie format | 720p @ 30fps | vs | 720p @ 30fps | Both shoot high resolution HD movies | |||||||
video out | None | vs | None | Neither have video output to connect to TVs etc |
Web browsing
|
| ||||||||||
browser benchmark | 1 575 ms | vs | 1 614 ms | Both have fast web browsers | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
adobe flash support | No | vs | No | Neither supports Adobe Flash |
Processing power
|
| ||||||||||
frequency | 1,4 GHz | vs | 1,4 GHz | Powerful processors, very snappy and responsive | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
number of cores | Single core | vs | Single core | Both have single core cpus which is about the average | |||||||
ram | 512 MB | vs | 512 MB | Average amount of RAM for running apps |
Music
|
| ||||||||||
fm radio | Yes | vs | Yes | Both have built in FM radios to listen to news and music from FM stations | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fm transmitter | No | vs | No | Neither have built-in FM transmitters | |||||||
headphone jack | 3.5 mm | vs | 3.5 mm | Both have a headphone jack |
Keyboard & keypad
|
| ||||||||||
numeric keypad | Unknown | vs | None | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
keyboard | Unknown | vs | None |
0 comments:
Post a Comment