Notebookcheck

LG K61 smartphone review - This LG cell phone is too old-fashioned

With old operating system to new successes? The LG K61 looks chic, but comes with Android 9 and a rather slow processor for its price range. But maybe the LG phone can surprise us? You can read more in the review.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy),
LG K61
LG K61 (K Series)
Processor
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765 8 x 2.3 GHz, Cortex-A53
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.53 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 395 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, glossy: yes, 60 Hz
Storage
128 GB eMMC Flash, 128 GB 
, 110 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD up to 2TB, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Acceleration sensor, Proximity sensor, Compass
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4), Bluetooth 5.0, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.4 x 164.5 x 77.5 ( = 0.33 x 6.48 x 3.05 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix Phase comparison AF, LED flash, video @1080p/30fps (camera 1); 8.0MP, wide angle lens (camera 2); 5.0MP, depth of field (camera 3); 2.0MP, macro lens (camera 4)
Secondary Camera: 16 MPix
Additional features
Speakers: Mono loudspeaker at the lower edge, Keyboard: Virtual, Charger, USB cable, silicone bumper, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, SAR value: 0.453W/kg (head), 1.287W/kg (body); LTE Cat-7 (download) / Cat-13 (upload); DTS:X 3D Surround Sound; MIL-STD-810G certified; Google Assistant button; USB-C, fanless
Weight
191 g ( = 6.74 oz / 0.42 pounds), Power Supply: 52 g ( = 1.83 oz / 0.11 pounds)
Price
249 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Comparison devices

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
74 %7
09/2020
LG K61
Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320
191 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.53"2340x1080
77 %7
08/2020
Oppo A72
SD 665, Adreno 610
192 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.5"2400x1080
83 %7
06/2020
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
SD 720G, Adreno 618
209 g64 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
79 %7
06/2020
Samsung Galaxy A41
Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2
152 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.1"2400x1080

Case, equipment and operation - chic, but slow

In white or grey, the LG K61 comes to your home, both versions have a subtle stripe pattern. The transverse camera module is an eye-catcher, on the front there is a slightly wider frame under the display, otherwise the smartphone looks quite modern thanks to the punchhole front camera. In terms of weight, the LG K61 is on the usual level for a smartphone of this size.

The material transitions are a bit rough from time to time, but overall the smartphone makes a solidly processed impression. With 128 GB mass storage, the equipment is quite lavish, and there is also NFC, so that you can use Google Pay.

It's a pity that the LG K61 only includes a WLAN module with WiFi 4, so the transfer rates that we measure with the reference router Netgear Nighthawk AX12 are significantly lower than the comparable devices with WiFi 5. 

Size comparison

165.75 mm / 6.53 inch 76.68 mm / 3.02 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 209 g0.4608 lbs164.5 mm / 6.48 inch 77.5 mm / 3.05 inch 8.4 mm / 0.3307 inch 191 g0.4211 lbs162 mm / 6.38 inch 75.5 mm / 2.97 inch 8.9 mm / 0.3504 inch 192 g0.4233 lbs149.9 mm / 5.9 inch 69.8 mm / 2.75 inch 7.9 mm / 0.311 inch 152 g0.3351 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
619 (283min - 670max) MBit/s ∼100% +902%
Samsung Galaxy A41
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
365 (349min - 370max) MBit/s ∼59% +491%
Oppo A72
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
347 (330min - 356max) MBit/s ∼56% +461%
LG K61
802.11a/b/g/n
61.8 (57min - 63max) MBit/s ∼10%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
551 (465min - 583max) MBit/s ∼100% +902%
Samsung Galaxy A41
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
349 (339min - 355max) MBit/s ∼63% +535%
Oppo A72
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
330 (284min - 346max) MBit/s ∼60% +500%
LG K61
802.11a/b/g/n
55 (51min - 69max) MBit/s ∼10%
010203040506070Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø61.4 (57-63)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø55 (51-69)

Cameras - 4 unsharp lenses

Recording front camera
Recording front camera

The camera module on the rear of the camera comes with four lenses. In addition to the main camera, there are significantly lower-resolution lenses for wide-angle and macro photography and a lens for depth-of-field effects.

Shots taken with the main camera appear brighter at first, but are not very detailed and look blurred when you look closer. The wide-angle camera corrects distortion rather moderately well, does not separate objects well from each other, and also takes rather blurred pictures in detail. For snapshots both lenses are suitable, but you shouldn't demand more from them. In low light, the brightening is quite good, but the autofocus fails, so that the pictures look very blurred.

Videos can be recorded with 1080p and 30 fps at most. The quality is similar to photos, i.e. in detail rather blurred, but the exposure even in darker areas is OK.

Image Comparison

Choose a scene and navigate within the first image. One click changes the position on touchscreens. One click on the zoomed-in image opens the original in a new window. The first image shows the scaled photograph of the test device.

Hauptobjektiv BlumeHauptobjektiv UmgebungHauptobjektiv Low LightUltraweitwinkel
click to load images
ColorChecker
28.9 ∆E
52.3 ∆E
37.8 ∆E
35.6 ∆E
42 ∆E
60.1 ∆E
51 ∆E
32 ∆E
39.6 ∆E
26.4 ∆E
62.7 ∆E
61.9 ∆E
27.7 ∆E
46.5 ∆E
34.2 ∆E
73.4 ∆E
39.2 ∆E
41.1 ∆E
76.1 ∆E
68.2 ∆E
50.1 ∆E
36 ∆E
23.4 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
ColorChecker LG K61: 44.17 ∆E min: 13.9 - max: 76.13 ∆E
ColorChecker
14.6 ∆E
14 ∆E
19.7 ∆E
16.3 ∆E
18.6 ∆E
12.8 ∆E
14.4 ∆E
19.1 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
12.7 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
7.5 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
11.9 ∆E
15.5 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
11.2 ∆E
9.3 ∆E
4.2 ∆E
4.5 ∆E
ColorChecker LG K61: 11.34 ∆E min: 3.89 - max: 19.73 ∆E

Display - Full-HD-Screen on the LG K61

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

A Full-HD display is now standard in this price class, and the LG K61 can also serve with it. The brightness is absolutely OK, but in comparison on a rather low level. The contrast remains below 1.000:1 due to the mediocre black level of 0.56 cd/m², which makes colors look less bright on the display.

We don't notice any PWM flickering, the response times of the screen are mediocre at best, but the smartphone is only suitable for gaming to a limited extent anyway due to the low performance.

There are also cell phones in this price range with more exact colors, especially strong red is reproduced falsified.

516
cd/m²
499
cd/m²
514
cd/m²
514
cd/m²
505
cd/m²
522
cd/m²
499
cd/m²
503
cd/m²
526
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 526 cd/m² Average: 510.9 cd/m² Minimum: 3.02 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 95 %
Center on Battery: 505 cd/m²
Contrast: 902:1 (Black: 0.56 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.76 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.8
ΔE Greyscale 4.9 | 0.64-98 Ø6
98% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.244
LG K61
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.53
Oppo A72
IPS LCD, 2400x1080, 6.5
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
Samsung Galaxy A41
Super AMOLED, 2400x1080, 6.1
Response Times
-15%
-30%
84%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
38 (19, 19)
40.4 (18.8, 21.6)
-6%
44.8 (20.4, 24.4)
-18%
5.6 (2.8, 2.8)
85%
Response Time Black / White *
18 (7, 11)
22.4 (9.2, 13.2)
-24%
25.6 (10.8, 14.8)
-42%
3.2 (2, 1.2)
82%
PWM Frequency
2404 (43)
245.1 (99)
Screen
-5%
43%
31%
Brightness middle
505
505
0%
610
21%
554
10%
Brightness
511
482
-6%
579
13%
559
9%
Brightness Distribution
95
93
-2%
92
-3%
92
-3%
Black Level *
0.56
0.55
2%
0.37
34%
Contrast
902
918
2%
1649
83%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.76
6.3
-9%
1.8
69%
2
65%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
12.04
10.1
16%
3
75%
7.7
36%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
4.9
6.8
-39%
2.5
49%
1.6
67%
Gamma
2.244 98%
2.29 96%
2.31 95%
2.11 104%
CCT
7807 83%
8161 80%
6864 95%
6589 99%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-10% / -7%
7% / 28%
58% / 44%

* ... smaller is better

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
18 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7 ms rise
↘ 11 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 22 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.4 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
38 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19 ms rise
↘ 19 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 38 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (38.8 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM not detected

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 17699 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 2500000) Hz was measured.


CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Grayscale
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color accuracy
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Color space
CalMAN Saturation
CalMAN Saturation

Performance, emissions and battery life - Need more power

The MediaTek Helio P35 is not a performance miracle and with this SoC the LG K61 is clearly inferior to comparable devices in terms of performance. The microSD reader cuts a good figure with our reference memory card Toshiba Exceria Pro M501, but the internal memory is quite slow, so loading times are lengthy.

In terms of warming, you don't have to worry about the LG K61, it doesn't warm up critically even under maximum load. The small mono speaker on the lower edge doesn't get very loud and can hardly display low mids, but remains quite muffled even when singing and is altogether only suitable for emergencies.

From the 4.000-mAh-battery LG gets a good 14 hours of battery life, which is enough for 2 to 3 days without charging during normal use. However, the smartphone needs well over 2 hours for a full battery, since there is no quick charge mode.

Geekbench 5.1 / 5.2
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
967 Points ∼49%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1256 Points ∼64% +30%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1771 Points ∼90% +83%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1222 Points ∼62% +26%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (902 - 967, n=2)
935 Points ∼48% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 3531, n=107)
1961 Points ∼100% +103%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
168 Points ∼30%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
309 Points ∼54% +84%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
569 Points ∼100% +239%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
357 Points ∼63% +113%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (168 - 173, n=2)
171 Points ∼30% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1342, n=107)
557 Points ∼98% +232%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
3814 Points ∼33%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
11432 Points ∼100% +200%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
Points ∼0% -100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
7829 Points ∼68% +105%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
6742 Points ∼59% +77%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (3814 - 5794, n=8)
5012 Points ∼44% +31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=509)
5915 Points ∼52% +55%
Work performance score (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
4040 Points ∼44%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7651 Points ∼84% +89%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
9091 Points ∼100% +125%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
7594 Points ∼84% +88%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (4040 - 7753, n=6)
5959 Points ∼66% +48%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=667)
6485 Points ∼71% +61%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
766 Points ∼24%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2154 Points ∼67% +181%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3236 Points ∼100% +322%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2427 Points ∼75% +217%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (766 - 1221, n=8)
1108 Points ∼34% +45%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=513)
2203 Points ∼68% +188%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
465 Points ∼18%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
987 Points ∼39% +112%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2539 Points ∼100% +446%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1028 Points ∼40% +121%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (432 - 489, n=8)
464 Points ∼18% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 9567, n=513)
2113 Points ∼83% +354%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
509 Points ∼19%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1097 Points ∼41% +116%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2667 Points ∼100% +424%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1179 Points ∼44% +132%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (496 - 564, n=8)
532 Points ∼20% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 8269, n=514)
1973 Points ∼74% +288%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
653 Points ∼20%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2199 Points ∼68% +237%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3226 Points ∼100% +394%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2466 Points ∼76% +278%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (653 - 1213, n=8)
1080 Points ∼33% +65%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=544)
2114 Points ∼66% +224%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
749 Points ∼20%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1653 Points ∼44% +121%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3785 Points ∼100% +405%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1486 Points ∼39% +98%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (695 - 817, n=8)
759 Points ∼20% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=544)
2832 Points ∼75% +278%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
725 Points ∼20%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1765 Points ∼48% +143%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3645 Points ∼100% +403%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1630 Points ∼45% +125%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (725 - 881, n=8)
809 Points ∼22% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10699, n=544)
2378 Points ∼65% +228%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
725 Points ∼23%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2246 Points ∼71% +210%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3170 Points ∼100% +337%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2296 Points ∼72% +217%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (435 - 1183, n=8)
987 Points ∼31% +36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5209, n=594)
2086 Points ∼66% +188%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
151 Points ∼6%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
980 Points ∼42% +549%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2356 Points ∼100% +1460%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1016 Points ∼43% +573%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (151 - 508, n=8)
375 Points ∼16% +148%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 8469, n=594)
1780 Points ∼76% +1079%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
183 Points ∼7%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1134 Points ∼45% +520%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2499 Points ∼100% +1266%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1160 Points ∼46% +534%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (183 - 512, n=8)
403 Points ∼16% +120%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 7400, n=595)
1697 Points ∼68% +827%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
722 Points ∼22%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2282 Points ∼70% +216%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3263 Points ∼100% +352%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2181 Points ∼67% +202%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (722 - 1177, n=8)
1058 Points ∼32% +47%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=636)
1950 Points ∼60% +170%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
205 Points ∼6%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1564 Points ∼43% +663%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3620 Points ∼100% +1666%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1093 Points ∼30% +433%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (205 - 736, n=8)
561 Points ∼15% +174%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 12611, n=635)
2343 Points ∼65% +1043%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
244 Points ∼7%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1675 Points ∼47% +586%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3534 Points ∼100% +1348%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
1229 Points ∼35% +404%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (244 - 802, n=8)
623 Points ∼18% +155%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 9549, n=638)
2013 Points ∼57% +725%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
17865 Points ∼89%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
20054 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
17231 Points ∼86%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (10689 - 17468, n=6)
15998 Points ∼80%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 58293, n=782)
15420 Points ∼77%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24321 Points ∼47%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
51789 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
22232 Points ∼43%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (7061 - 12205, n=6)
10858 Points ∼21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209431, n=780)
26563 Points ∼51%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
22445 Points ∼59%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
38315 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
20885 Points ∼55%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (7637 - 13081, n=6)
11692 Points ∼31%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 112989, n=780)
20764 Points ∼54%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
2.3 fps ∼20%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4 fps ∼35% +74%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
11 fps ∼97% +378%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
4.9 fps ∼43% +113%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (2.2 - 4.7, n=7)
3.51 fps ∼31% +53%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=306)
11.3 fps ∼100% +391%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
1.5 fps ∼19%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.7 fps ∼33% +80%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
6.9 fps ∼85% +360%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
2.8 fps ∼35% +87%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (1.4 - 1.5, n=7)
1.443 fps ∼18% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=304)
8.09 fps ∼100% +439%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
3.6 fps ∼21%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6.2 fps ∼36% +72%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
17 fps ∼100% +372%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
7.5 fps ∼44% +108%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (3.5 - 7.4, n=8)
5.73 fps ∼34% +59%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=310)
16.9 fps ∼99% +369%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
LG K61
Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765, PowerVR GE8320, 4096
3.9 fps ∼20%
Oppo A72
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.8 fps ∼40% +100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
18 fps ∼93% +362%
Samsung Galaxy A41
Mediatek Helio P65, Mali-G52 MP2, 4096
7.5 fps ∼39% +92%
Average Mediatek Helio P35 MT6765
  (3.8 - 3.9, n=8)
3.84 fps ∼20% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=309)
19.4 fps ∼100% +397%
LG K61Oppo A72Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 ProSamsung Galaxy A41Average 128 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
190%
147%
83%
41%
19%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
58.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
31.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-47%
54.94 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-6%
67 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
14%
62.5 (26.1 - 73.5, n=22)
7%
51 (1.7 - 87.1, n=527)
-13%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
79.8 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
37.76 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-53%
76.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
83.01 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
75.2 (29.2 - 85.9, n=22)
-6%
69 (8.1 - 96.5, n=527)
-14%
Random Write 4KB
13.7
152.9
1016%
112.93
724%
72.53
429%
46.5 (8.48 - 151, n=24)
239%
35.4 (0.14 - 319, n=879)
158%
Random Read 4KB
58.3
135.91
133%
122.58
110%
84
44%
68.4 (20.7 - 108, n=24)
17%
58.7 (1.59 - 324, n=879)
1%
Sequential Write 256KB
224.1
234.61
5%
171.09
-24%
211.05
-6%
186 (90 - 258, n=24)
-17%
127 (2.99 - 911, n=879)
-43%
Sequential Read 256KB
273.4
504.32
84%
498.15
82%
299.89
10%
288 (144 - 499, n=24)
5%
339 (12.1 - 1802, n=879)
24%

Temperature

Max. Load
 38.8 °C
102 F
36.9 °C
98 F
35.2 °C
95 F
 
 39.5 °C
103 F
37.3 °C
99 F
35.6 °C
96 F
 
 40.3 °C
105 F
37.4 °C
99 F
35.5 °C
96 F
 
Maximum: 40.3 °C = 105 F
Average: 37.4 °C = 99 F
38.3 °C
101 F
35.3 °C
96 F
36.8 °C
98 F
37.7 °C
100 F
35.1 °C
95 F
37.3 °C
99 F
38.3 °C
101 F
35.1 °C
95 F
37.4 °C
99 F
Maximum: 38.3 °C = 101 F
Average: 32.6 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.3 °C = 108 F | Room Temperature 21.7 °C = 71 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 37.4 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 33 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 40.3 °C / 105 F, compared to the average of 35.4 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 38.3 °C / 101 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 26.2 °C / 79 F, compared to the device average of 33 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap back side
Heatmap back side
Heatmap Front
Heatmap Front

Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2038.942.62536.836.93133.129.14032.937.75035.336.96328.731.48019.121.210020.421.812520.52116017.218.520014.214.625014.516.931514.522.340012.831.450013.440.263013.650.280018.958.8100018.665.8125021.264.7160014.966.1200014.166.4250014.664.1315014.766400015.570.3500016.269.563001769.680001868.11000018.874.11250019.671.31600020.555.5SPL58.42979.6N10.61.140.4median 16.2median 64.1Delta2.518.534.832.919.625.523.920.424.323.130.533.518.724.420.420.418.620.917.526.719.544.519.244.316.450.215.255.614.259.714.765.813.872.114.675.214.175.813.574.414.474.913.976.113.878.713.879.414.771.214.271.114.470.814.9741575.615.166.415.356.126.587.10.869.6median 14.7median 71.10.811.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseLG K61Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
LG K61 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (79.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 44.9% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (5.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 10.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (12.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (36.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 96% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 30.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (20.6% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 19% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 70% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 47% of all tested devices were better, 9% similar, 45% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life

LG K61
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro
5020 mAh
Oppo A72
5000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A41
3500 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
842
1175
40%
1018
21%
650
-23%
694 (223 - 2636, n=743)
-18%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
14h 02min

Pros

+ good memory capacity
+ NFC
+ chic case
+ Quad Camera

Cons

- slow WLAN
- quiet, dull loudspeaker
- old Android 9
- blurred camera images

Verdict - There are good alternatives

In review: LG K61.
In review: LG K61.

LG should have made much more effort with the K61 to keep up with similarly expensive smartphones. Performance, WLAN speed, battery life, speaker quality, cameras: in none of these areas can the LG cell phone hold a candle to its competitors. Even at the now lower street price, you can often find better deals.

Although the housing of the LG K61 with the unusual camera module is pleasing, the device is altogether too old-fashioned.

This is a pity, because the housing pleases, the fingerprint sensor works reliably and for simple tasks the smartphone is sufficient in any case. But since the older Android 9 is also installed on the smartphone, it looks even more old-fashioned compared to the competition with more modern software.

The LG K61 could only be recommended if it was much cheaper, so there are better alternatives.

LG K61 - 09/15/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
81%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
93%
Connectivity
41 / 70 → 58%
Weight
89%
Battery
90%
Display
83%
Games Performance
6 / 64 → 10%
Application Performance
45 / 86 → 52%
Temperature
90%
Noise
100%
Audio
50 / 90 → 56%
Camera
44%
Average
68%
74%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > LG K61 smartphone review - This LG cell phone is too old-fashioned
Florian Schmitt, 2020-09-15 (Update: 2020-09-15)
Florian Schmitt
Editor of the original article: Florian Schmitt - Managing Editor Mobile
When I was 12, the first computer came into the house and immediately I started tinkering around, taking it apart, getting new parts and replacing them - after all, there always had to be enough power for the current games. When I came to Notebookcheck in 2009, I was passionate about testing gaming notebooks. Since 2012, my attention has been focused on smartphones, tablets and future technologies.