C 2018
Notebookcheck

Nokia 3.1 Smartphone Review

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Felicitas Krohn (translated by Martin Jungowski), 08/03/2018

Gentle upgrade. Round two for the Nokia 3, which has been revised in terms of both looks and internal hardware. For less than $160 you get a decently equipped Android One smartphone made by HMD Global. Find out what we think in our extensive review.

HMD Global’s Nokia 3.1 is a typical entry-level smartphone powered by a low to mid-range MediaTek SoC and, unlike its predecessor, equipped with a 2:1 display with a resolution of 1440 x 720 pixels. Depending on the model, it features either 2 or 3 GB of RAM and 16 or 32 GB of storage space, respectively. The 2,990-mAh battery is slightly bigger than the one in last year’s model, and the device still features a single-lens camera. Our review unit was the low-end entry-level model that sold for around $160 at the time of writing.

Its main competitors are the Gigaset GS185Motorola Moto G6 Play, and the Honor 7C. Other previously more expensive phones, such as last year’s Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017), can also be found in this price range.

Nokia 3.1 (3 Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
2048 MB 
, LPDDR3
Display
5.2 inch 2:1, 1440 x 720 pixel 310 PPI, 10-point capacitive touchscreen, IPS, Corning Gorilla Glas, glossy: yes
Storage
16 GB eMMC Flash, 16 GB 
, 8.2 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5-mm audio, Card Reader: microSD up to 128 GB (SD, SDHC, SDXC), NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: proximity sensor, accelorometer, gyroscope, magnetometer
Networking
802.11a/b/g/n (a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.2, GSM/GPRS/Edge (850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz), UMTS/HSPA+ (band 1, 5, and 8), LTE Cat. 4 (band 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, and 40), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.7 x 146.25 x 68.65 ( = 0.34 x 5.76 x 2.7 in)
Battery
2990 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 8.0 Oreo
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix (autofocus, f/2.0, LED flash, 1080p video)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix (fixed focus, f/2.0, 84.6° wide-angle)
Additional features
Speakers: mono speaker, Keyboard: on-screen, power supply, USB cable, SIM tool, quick-start guide, headset, Android One, 24 Months Warranty, head SAR: 1,08 W/kg, body SAR: 0,75 W/kg, fanless
Weight
138 g ( = 4.87 oz / 0.3 pounds), Power Supply: 52 g ( = 1.83 oz / 0.11 pounds)
Price
159 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The Nokia 3.1 is available in Black, Blue, or Gray. Its front is completely covered by Corning Gorilla Glass embedded into a plastic frame that is in turn embedded into the aluminum case. The rear side is made of plastic. The protruding camera bump may look ugly but it does a great job in protecting the slightly recessed lens.

Overall build quality was very good with narrow and consistent gaps. The smartphone resisted pressure fairly well as even immense force applied to the display did not result in any visible ripple effects. Torsional forces, however, did produce noticeable creaking.

The battery is not user-replaceable, and the phone features two card slots: one for a microSD card and one for up to two nano SIM cards. The trays are made of metal and thus very sturdy.

Size Comparison

Connectivity

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

Connectivity has remained unchanged from last year’s model. The micro USB port at the bottom is used for charging, data transfers at USB 2.0 speeds, and USB OTG for external peripherals.

Micro SD cards of up to 128 GB are supported, although we suggest to take this with a grain of salt. Our 64 GB Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card refused to work in the Nokia 3.1, and we had to revert to the M401 instead. SD cards can be formatted either as external storage for media files only or as internal storage for apps and data.

Furthermore, the phone supports Bluetooth 4.2, NFC, and FM radio. Unfortunately, it lacks a fingerprint reader and any form of facial recognition.

Software

The device comes with Android 8.0 Oreo preinstalled. Despite the fact that it is an Android One device the update to 8.1 was nowhere to be seen, and nobody was able to give us further information regarding a possible time frame. In general, the Android One program should guarantee at least two full years of major updates plus one extra year of security updates. Those, at least, were up to date on our review unit.

We found no additional apps other than the usual Google apps preloaded onto our device, and Android’s user management capabilities were enabled. HMD Global offers an application called Nokia Suite for synchronizing the phone with a computer. It is the successor to the Nokia PC Suite that was discontinued back in 2012.

Communication and GPS

Compared to last year’s model, support for one LTE band is missing from the new model, namely band 28 (700 MHz). Unlike European providers, neither American nor Canadian operators use this particular band so it does not really matter. Otherwise, cellular support is decent and even includes bands 38 and 40 that are commonly used in Russia and China. Transfer speeds were limited to just 150 Mbps download / 50 Mbps upload and thus on the slow side. Cellular reception was unremarkable during the review period.

Supported Wi-Fi standards include 2.4 and 5 GHz IEE802.11a/b/g/n. Transfer rates when connected to our Linksys EA8500 reference router were okay and consistent.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
Mali-T830 MP1, 7870 Octa, 16 GB eMMC Flash
278 MBit/s ∼100% +148%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=278)
198 MBit/s ∼71% +77%
Nokia 3.1
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750N, 16 GB eMMC Flash
112 MBit/s ∼40%
Nokia 3
Mali-T720, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
81.1 MBit/s ∼29% -28%
Gigaset GS185
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
54.7 MBit/s ∼20% -51%
Honor 7C
Adreno 506, 450, 32 GB eMMC Flash
46 MBit/s ∼17% -59%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
44.7 MBit/s ∼16% -60%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
Mali-T830 MP1, 7870 Octa, 16 GB eMMC Flash
281 MBit/s ∼100% +181%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=278)
194 MBit/s ∼69% +94%
Nokia 3.1
Mali-T860 MP2, MT6750N, 16 GB eMMC Flash
100 MBit/s ∼36%
Nokia 3
Mali-T720, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
76.6 MBit/s ∼27% -23%
Gigaset GS185
Adreno 308, 425, 16 GB eMMC Flash
53.7 MBit/s ∼19% -46%
Honor 7C
Adreno 506, 450, 32 GB eMMC Flash
53 MBit/s ∼19% -47%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
46.8 MBit/s ∼17% -53%
GPS test outdoors
GPS test outdoors
GPS test indoors
GPS test indoors

Supported location services include GPS (American) and GLONASS (Russian). While we were unable to obtain GPS lock indoors outdoor accuracy was very good at just 4 m (~13 feet). However, it took a very long 10 seconds to secure a stable satellite connection.

We took the Nokia 3.1 on our usual bicycle tour to compare it to a professional Garmin Edge 500 GPS device. The recorded track was just 30 m (~98 feet) shorter on the Nokia smartphone, and looking at the details we discovered that both devices recorded very similar tracks. In other words: the Nokia 3.1’s GPS capabilities were outstanding.

Garmin Edge 500 - overview
Garmin Edge 500 - overview
Garmin Edge 500 - lake
Garmin Edge 500 - lake
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Garmin Edge 500 - turning point
Nokia 3.1 - overview
Nokia 3.1 - overview
Nokia 3.1 - lake
Nokia 3.1 - lake
Nokia 3.1 - turning point
Nokia 3.1 - turning point

Telephony and Call Quality

Nokia 3.1: telephony app
Nokia 3.1: telephony app

Google’s default well-known and well-established telephone app is HMD Global’s app of choice when it comes to telephony.

Call quality on earphone was decent and trouble-free although it was instantly noticeable on the other side that we were using a cellular phone. Speakerphone, however, turned out to be more of a makeshift than a usable and legit way to make or take phone calls. Even with the phone placed directly next to us or very close by our conversational partners had serious trouble deciphering what we were saying, and the phone’s speakers distorted noticeably.

In theory, the Nokia 3.1 comes with support for VoLTE, however we were unable to test it in the O2 network that we used the phone in.

Cameras

Nokia 3.1 selfie
Nokia 3.1 selfie

The front-facing camera features an 8 MP sensor but was surprisingly light-sensitive and included a beauty mode for improved selfies. Daylight photos turned out very decent but the camera quickly surrendered to decreasing light. Videos are recorded in 720p.

The main rear-facing camera has been upgraded and now features a 13 MP sensor. Photos were very decent save for the landscape photo. Macro shots worked surprisingly well, and the single LED flash did a good job improving low-light photos to a certain extent. Low-light still photos were doable even without the flash albeit they came at the cost of increased noise. Shutter lag was okay but not the best and taking fast-paced snapshots can be a challenge.

Videos are recorded in FHD and offer decent sound quality. Back light, however, turned out to be a major challenge for the Nokia 3.1’s camera, and it also lacks image stabilization. Slow-motion videos are recorded in 480p and are not particularly slow. Time lapses are recorded in 1080p and were very decent.

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.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
click to load images

Accessories and Warranty

European customers get 24 months of limited warranty when purchasing a Nokia 3.1 smartphone. American customers are once again deprived of the second year and restricted to just 12 months. In some countries, HMD Global offers a so-called Nokia Service insurance. It does not extend warranty beyond the two years but adds additional covered incidents, such as accidental drop damage, fire, water damage, shorts, or other forms of wrongful handling instead. It must be obtained within two weeks of purchasing the device.

Included in the box were the usual suspects: a modular power supply (5 V / 1 A), a USB cable, a SIM tool, a headset, and a quick-start guide in 15 different languages.

Input Devices and Handling

The 10-point multi-touch capacitive touchscreen had a very smooth surface that was conveniently easy to clean. Its precision and accuracy were good and its response times were low. Input was translated into actions very quickly, and the only times we noticed any sort of input lag was when either multitasking or running more demanding applications.

The default keyboard app is Google’s GBoard. It can be easily replaced with a variety of other keyboards available in the Google Play Store.

Unfortunately, the Nokia 3.1 lacks a fingerprint reader and only supports conventional methods of securing your phone, namely PIN code, password, or swipe gesture.

Display

Subpixel geometry
Subpixel geometry

On paper, the Nokia 3.1’s IPS panel’s size increased to 5.2 inches diagonally. In reality, it only grew by around 80 square millimeters due to the changed aspect ratio. Its 1440 x 720 resolution makes for a decent pixel density and is high enough for a very crisp and sharp image without recognizable pixels.

At 509 nits maximum brightness was impressive, and brightness distribution was very decent as well. Unfortunately, at 19 nits minimum brightness was too high for comfortable use in the dark, particularly considering that the device lacks a night mode.

Black level was very low at 0.24 nits, and somewhat higher in the APL 50 test with evenly distributed bright and dark areas (0.44 nits). Thus, contrast ratio under realistic conditions was a good 1,136:1.

473
cd/m²
495
cd/m²
488
cd/m²
491
cd/m²
506
cd/m²
474
cd/m²
476
cd/m²
509
cd/m²
501
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 509 cd/m² Average: 490.3 cd/m² Minimum: 18.68 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 93 %
Center on Battery: 506 cd/m²
Contrast: 2108:1 (Black: 0.24 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.4 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 7.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
97.8% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.2
Nokia 3.1
IPS, 1440x720, 5.2
Nokia 3
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Honor 7C
IPS, 1440x720, 5.99
Gigaset GS185
IPS, 1440x720, 5.5
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
Super AMOLED, 1280x720, 5.2
Motorola Moto G6 Play
IPS, 1440x720, 5.7
Screen
-11%
-25%
-33%
21%
8%
Brightness middle
506
481
-5%
392
-23%
426
-16%
448
-11%
614
21%
Brightness
490
469
-4%
403
-18%
412
-16%
451
-8%
593
21%
Brightness Distribution
93
84
-10%
85
-9%
86
-8%
91
-2%
90
-3%
Black Level *
0.24
0.22
8%
0.61
-154%
0.7
-192%
0.29
-21%
Contrast
2108
2186
4%
643
-69%
609
-71%
2117
0%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.4
8.1
-27%
5.4
16%
5.3
17%
2.7
58%
5.9
8%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
11.1
15.4
-39%
9.7
13%
10.2
8%
9.8
12%
9.6
14%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
7.5
8.5
-13%
4.2
44%
6.3
16%
1.6
79%
5.5
27%
Gamma
2.2 100%
2.16 102%
2.59 85%
2.4 92%
2.06 107%
2.32 95%
CCT
8643 75%
9014 72%
6734 97%
8073 81%
6557 99%
7822 83%

* ... smaller is better

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: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8689 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

We test each display with the CalMAN software and spectrophotometer. Colors suffered from a measurable blue tint most noticeable in light Grays and a generally rather cool display of colors. Speaking of which, color accuracy was generally decent save for Blue and Cyan, which were visibly distorted. Most competitors did better in this test than the Nokia 3.1.

Grayscale (color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (color space: sRGB)
Colors (color space: sRGB)
Colors (color space: sRGB)
Color space coverage (color space: sRGB)
Color space coverage (color space: sRGB)
Saturation (color space: sRGB)
Saturation (color space: sRGB)

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
19.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 7.6 ms rise
↘ 12 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. » 18 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.7 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
44.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 19.6 ms rise
↘ 25.2 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 68 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (41.1 ms).

Outdoors, the device worked fairly well. It was very easily usable in the shade and always bright enough thanks to its ambient light sensor. In direct sunlight we found ourselves unsettled by the display’s reflections.

Nokia 3.1 in the shade
Nokia 3.1 in the shade
Nokia 3.1 in the sun
Nokia 3.1 in the sun

Viewing angles were very decent, and image quality was very good even at acute angles. Brightness decrease was negligible, and we did not notice any color inversions or glow effects.

Performance

The MediaTek MT6750N that the Nokia 3.1 is built around is a well-known contender. When it was first released as the MT6750 back in mid 2016, it was considered an upper mid-range SoC. Unfortunately, we don’t have any information as to what exactly changed in the N-version but looking at the specs it seems to be identical to the non-N-model: a total of eight cores made up of two quad-core Cortex A53 clusters running at 1.5 and 1 GHz, respectively. All things graphics are handled by an ARM Mali-T860 MP2 GPU, and the SoC has access to 2 GB of RAM.

While running our benchmarks we quickly noticed that the 6750N’s GPU performance was worse than the 6750’s, most likely because of a lower GPU core clock speed. In terms of raw CPU and GPU performance it scored somewhere in the middle of our test group and got bested most prominently by the Honor 7C and the Galaxy J5. That said overall system performance has been massively improved over its Nokia 3 predecessor.

AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
43987 Points ∼60%
Nokia 3
27703 Points ∼38% -37%
Honor 7C
54731 Points ∼75% +24%
Gigaset GS185
37339 Points ∼51% -15%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
45613 Points ∼63% +4%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
46267 Points ∼63% +5%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
43987 Points ∼60% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 250848, n=366)
72912 Points ∼100% +66%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
Honor 7C
71167 Points ∼64%
Gigaset GS185
45092 Points ∼40%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
61825 Points ∼55%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
58511 Points ∼52%
Average of class Smartphone (17073 - 348178, n=145)
111758 Points ∼100%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
3138 Points ∼66%
Nokia 3
2568 Points ∼54% -18%
Honor 7C
4736 Points ∼100% +51%
Gigaset GS185
3229 Points ∼68% +3%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
3889 Points ∼82% +24%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
3624 Points ∼77% +15%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
3138 Points ∼66% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6998 - 9868, n=232)
4419 Points ∼93% +41%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
3885 Points ∼69%
Nokia 3
3439 Points ∼61% -11%
Honor 7C
5656 Points ∼100% +46%
Gigaset GS185
3961 Points ∼70% +2%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
5006 Points ∼89% +29%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
4590 Points ∼81% +18%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
3885 Points ∼69% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4147 - 13211, n=395)
4782 Points ∼85% +23%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
671 Points ∼77%
Nokia 3
575 Points ∼66% -14%
Honor 7C
10 Points ∼1% -99%
Gigaset GS185
632 Points ∼73% -6%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
737 Points ∼85% +10%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
866 Points ∼100% +29%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
671 Points ∼77% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=471)
680 Points ∼79% +1%
Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
499 Points ∼31%
Nokia 3
211 Points ∼13% -58%
Honor 7C
955 Points ∼59% +91%
Gigaset GS185
440 Points ∼27% -12%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
534 Points ∼33% +7%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
737 Points ∼45% +48%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
499 Points ∼31% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15875, n=471)
1622 Points ∼100% +225%
Memory (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
1033 Points ∼68%
Nokia 3
703 Points ∼46% -32%
Honor 7C
1522 Points ∼100% +47%
Gigaset GS185
617 Points ∼41% -40%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
1249 Points ∼82% +21%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
741 Points ∼49% -28%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
1033 Points ∼68% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=471)
1171 Points ∼77% +13%
System (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
2097 Points ∼79%
Nokia 3
1081 Points ∼41% -48%
Honor 7C
2665 Points ∼100% +27%
Gigaset GS185
1217 Points ∼46% -42%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
2218 Points ∼83% +6%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
1531 Points ∼57% -27%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
2097 Points ∼79% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=471)
2367 Points ∼89% +13%
Overall (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
923 Points ∼78%
Nokia 3
551 Points ∼46% -40%
Honor 7C
442 Points ∼37% -52%
Gigaset GS185
676 Points ∼57% -27%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
1022 Points ∼86% +11%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
923 Points ∼78% 0%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
923 Points ∼78% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=475)
1185 Points ∼100% +28%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
1908 Points ∼46%
Nokia 3
1045 Points ∼25% -45%
Honor 7C
2800 Points ∼67% +47%
Gigaset GS185
1460 Points ∼35% -23%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
2332 Points ∼56% +22%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
2224 Points ∼53% +17%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
1908 Points ∼46% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=170)
4186 Points ∼100% +119%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
2645 Points ∼64%
Nokia 3
1520 Points ∼37% -43%
Honor 7C
3913 Points ∼94% +48%
Gigaset GS185
1871 Points ∼45% -29%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
3704 Points ∼89% +40%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
2322 Points ∼56% -12%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
2645 Points ∼64% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 11598, n=220)
4163 Points ∼100% +57%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
665 Points ∼54%
Nokia 3
556 Points ∼45% -16%
Honor 7C
758 Points ∼62% +14%
Gigaset GS185
683 Points ∼56% +3%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
732 Points ∼60% +10%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
643 Points ∼52% -3%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
665 Points ∼54% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=221)
1229 Points ∼100% +85%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
1144 Points ∼63%
Nokia 3
686 Points ∼38% -40%
Honor 7C
1817 Points ∼100% +59%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
1727 Points ∼95% +51%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
1259 Points ∼69% +10%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
1144 Points ∼63% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (549 - 4183, n=325)
1588 Points ∼87% +39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
150 Points ∼13%
Nokia 3
85 Points ∼8% -43%
Honor 7C
366 Points ∼33% +144%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
185 Points ∼16% +23%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
254 Points ∼23% +69%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
150 Points ∼13% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (69 - 5220, n=325)
1124 Points ∼100% +649%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
186 Points ∼17%
Nokia 3
106 Points ∼10% -43%
Honor 7C
445 Points ∼41% +139%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
231 Points ∼21% +24%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
309 Points ∼29% +66%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
186 Points ∼17% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (86 - 4734, n=333)
1075 Points ∼100% +478%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
1099 Points ∼61%
Nokia 3
745 Points ∼41% -32%
Honor 7C
1809 Points ∼100% +65%
Gigaset GS185
867 Points ∼48% -21%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
1685 Points ∼93% +53%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
1254 Points ∼69% +14%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
1099 Points ∼61% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 4150, n=356)
1484 Points ∼82% +35%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
103 Points ∼7%
Nokia 3
124 Points ∼8% +20%
Honor 7C
713 Points ∼47% +592%
Gigaset GS185
54 Points ∼4% -48%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
277 Points ∼18% +169%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
522 Points ∼34% +407%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
103 Points ∼7% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (104 - 8312, n=356)
1527 Points ∼100% +1383%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
129 Points ∼10%
Nokia 3
152 Points ∼12% +18%
Honor 7C
824 Points ∼63% +539%
Gigaset GS185
68 Points ∼5% -47%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
340 Points ∼26% +164%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
600 Points ∼46% +365%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
129 Points ∼10% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (127 - 6378, n=364)
1304 Points ∼100% +911%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
10044 Points ∼80%
Nokia 3
7925 Points ∼63% -21%
Gigaset GS185
10496 Points ∼83% +5%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
12605 Points ∼100% +25%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
9162 Points ∼73% -9%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
10044 Points ∼80% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (7095 - 36762, n=511)
12516 Points ∼99% +25%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
8163 Points ∼48%
Nokia 3
3177 Points ∼19% -61%
Gigaset GS185
5474 Points ∼32% -33%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
7484 Points ∼44% -8%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
9713 Points ∼57% +19%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
8163 Points ∼48% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 160199, n=511)
16923 Points ∼100% +107%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
8517 Points ∼59%
Nokia 3
3665 Points ∼26% -57%
Gigaset GS185
6125 Points ∼43% -28%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
8227 Points ∼57% -3%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
9585 Points ∼67% +13%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
8517 Points ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=512)
14348 Points ∼100% +68%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
13 fps ∼44%
Nokia 3
6 fps ∼20% -54%
Honor 7C
21 fps ∼71% +62%
Gigaset GS185
7.6 fps ∼26% -42%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
12 fps ∼41% -8%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
16 fps ∼54% +23%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
13 fps ∼44% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=537)
29.5 fps ∼100% +127%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
20 fps ∼59%
Nokia 3
10 fps ∼29% -50%
Honor 7C
34 fps ∼100% +70%
Gigaset GS185
13 fps ∼38% -35%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
20 fps ∼59% 0%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
26 fps ∼76% +30%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
20 fps ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=540)
24.2 fps ∼71% +21%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
5.5 fps ∼35%
Nokia 3
2.2 fps ∼14% -60%
Honor 7C
9.2 fps ∼58% +67%
Gigaset GS185
2.8 fps ∼18% -49%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
5.1 fps ∼32% -7%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
7.1 fps ∼45% +29%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
5.5 fps ∼35% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 115, n=459)
15.8 fps ∼100% +187%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
10 fps ∼56%
Nokia 3
4.5 fps ∼25% -55%
Honor 7C
18 fps ∼100% +80%
Gigaset GS185
5.6 fps ∼31% -44%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
10 fps ∼56% 0%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
14 fps ∼78% +40%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
10 fps ∼56% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 115, n=462)
15.3 fps ∼85% +53%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
3.6 fps ∼27%
Nokia 3
1.4 fps ∼10% -61%
Honor 7C
6 fps ∼45% +67%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
3.2 fps ∼24% -11%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
4.6 fps ∼34% +28%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
3.6 fps ∼27% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 69.3, n=324)
13.4 fps ∼100% +272%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
7.8 fps ∼59%
Nokia 3
3.2 fps ∼24% -59%
Honor 7C
13 fps ∼98% +67%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
7.4 fps ∼56% -5%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
10 fps ∼75% +28%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
7.8 fps ∼59% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=326)
13.3 fps ∼100% +71%
GFXBench
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
2 fps ∼21%
Honor 7C
3.3 fps ∼35% +65%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
1.9 fps ∼20% -5%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
2.6 fps ∼28% +30%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
2 fps ∼21% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (0.72 - 40, n=254)
9.31 fps ∼100% +366%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 3.1
4.1 fps ∼49%
Honor 7C
7 fps ∼83% +71%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
3.7 fps ∼44% -10%
Motorola Moto G6 Play
5.3 fps ∼63% +29%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
4.1 fps ∼49% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1.1 - 50, n=257)
8.44 fps ∼100% +106%

Legend

 
Nokia 3.1 Mediatek MT6750N, ARM Mali-T860 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Nokia 3 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Honor 7C Qualcomm Snapdragon 450, Qualcomm Adreno 506, 32 GB eMMC Flash
 
Gigaset GS185 Qualcomm Snapdragon 425 (MSM8917), Qualcomm Adreno 308, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos Samsung Exynos 7870 Octa, ARM Mali-T830 MP1, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Motorola Moto G6 Play Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Qualcomm Adreno 505, 32 GB eMMC Flash

Web browsing performance was rather poor. Rendering complex websites took quite a while, which shows in the benchmarks scores: the Nokia 3.1 can be found mostly in the lower-end of the spectrum.

JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=394)
35.4 Points ∼100% +97%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos (Samsung Browser 5.4)
26.37 Points ∼74% +46%
Honor 7C (Chrome 66)
22.35 Points ∼63% +24%
Motorola Moto G6 Play (Chrome 66)
18.142 Points ∼51% +1%
Nokia 3.1 (Chrome 67)
18.015 Points ∼51%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
18 Points ∼51% 0%
Gigaset GS185 (Chrome 66)
17.765 Points ∼50% -1%
Nokia 3 (Chrome 59)
13.97 Points ∼39% -22%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=530)
5305 Points ∼100% +62%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos (Samsung Browser 5.4)
4968 Points ∼94% +52%
Honor 7C (Chrome 66)
3470 Points ∼65% +6%
Motorola Moto G6 Play (Chrome 66)
3296 Points ∼62% +1%
Nokia 3.1 (Chrome 67)
3274 Points ∼62%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
3274 Points ∼62% 0%
Gigaset GS185 (Chrome 66)
3084 Points ∼58% -6%
Nokia 3 (Chrome 59)
2269 Points ∼43% -31%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
Nokia 3 (Chrome 59)
16759 ms * ∼100% -19%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
14116 ms * ∼84% -0%
Nokia 3.1 (Chrome 67)
14115.5 ms * ∼84%
Motorola Moto G6 Play (Chrome 66)
13730 ms * ∼82% +3%
Gigaset GS185 (Chrome 66)
13666.4 ms * ∼82% +3%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=549)
11710 ms * ∼70% +17%
Honor 7C (Chrome 66)
11370 ms * ∼68% +19%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos (Samsung Browser 5.4)
6784.4 ms * ∼40% +52%
WebXPRT 2015 - Overall Score
Average of class Smartphone (27 - 362, n=263)
105 Points ∼100% +35%
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos (Samsung Browser 5.4)
80 Points ∼76% +3%
Gigaset GS185 (Chrome 66)
79 Points ∼75% +1%
Nokia 3.1 (Chrome 67)
78 Points ∼74%
Average Mediatek MT6750N
78 Points ∼74% 0%
Nokia 3 (Chrome 59)
49 Points ∼47% -37%

* ... smaller is better

Almost half of the available storage was taken up and just 8.2 GB remained user accessible out of the box. Expanding storage via micro SD card seems to be a necessity rather than an option, particularly considering the Nokia 3.1’s support for formatting micro SD cards as internal storage and the card reader’s very respectable results when benchmarked with last year’s Toshiba Exceria Pro M401 reference card. Unfortunately, we are unable to make these claims in regard to the internal memory, which showed very poor write performance.

Nokia 3.1Nokia 3Honor 7CGigaset GS185Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) DuosMotorola Moto G6 PlayAverage 16 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
-26%
36%
-0%
-9%
148%
-29%
15%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
59.84 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
62.9
5%
62.61 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
5%
59.74 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
0%
44.21 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-26%
60.73 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
36.8 (6.38 - 65.4, n=108)
-39%
44.7 (3.4 - 87.1, n=301)
-25%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
77.17 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
64.3
-17%
83.87 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
9%
84.28 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
9%
72.22 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-6%
83.23 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
8%
55.5 (10.8 - 87.7, n=108)
-28%
63 (8.2 - 96.5, n=301)
-18%
Random Write 4KB
9.2
5.5
-40%
10
9%
9.05
-2%
9.9
8%
61.68
570%
7.32 (0.49 - 37.9, n=223)
-20%
14.8 (0.14 - 164, n=580)
61%
Random Read 4KB
48.62
17.7
-64%
30
-38%
31.71
-35%
24.07
-50%
65.95
36%
19.7 (2.49 - 61.7, n=223)
-59%
36.4 (1.59 - 173, n=580)
-25%
Sequential Write 256KB
35.26
34
-4%
115
226%
45.54
29%
51.96
47%
135.82
285%
41.5 (8.74 - 97.6, n=223)
18%
75.8 (2.99 - 242, n=580)
115%
Sequential Read 256KB
281.54
181
-36%
297
5%
275.68
-2%
204.45
-27%
243.67
-13%
157 (9.66 - 294, n=223)
-44%
222 (12.1 - 895, n=580)
-21%

Gaming

Most games, except for the latest demanding AAA titles, will run just fine on the ARM Mali-T860 MP2 GPU, albeit more often than not in-game details will have to be reduced for a smooth gaming experience. Using GameBench we benchmarked the latest racing game Asphalt 9: Legends. In high details, the game ran rather poorly with frame rates as low as 15 FPS. It ran much better in standard settings, although occasional stuttering seemed unavoidable even so.

The display is not the largest, but the sensors and the touchscreen worked very reliably and were quick to react. Only the speaker was a bit weak and very often covered accidentally by our hands.

Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: Legends
Asphalt 9: GameBench
Asphalt 9: GameBench
Bethesda Pinball
Bethesda Pinball
Asphalt 9: Legends
 SettingsValue
 High Quality22 fps
 Standard / low26 fps

Emissions

Temperature

GFXBench battery test (OpenGL ES 2.0)
T-Rex
GFXBench battery test (OpenGL ES 3.1)
Manhattan

The Nokia 3.1’s surfaces mostly remained cool to the touch and got barely lukewarm under sustained heavy load.

Internal heat dissipation was determined using the GFXBench battery benchmark, and the device did very well indeed. Both, the T-Rex and the Manhattan test yielded a very consistent level of performance.

Max. Load
 34.2 °C
94 F
33.9 °C
93 F
33.1 °C
92 F
 
 33.9 °C
93 F
33.1 °C
92 F
32.3 °C
90 F
 
 33 °C
91 F
31.4 °C
89 F
31.2 °C
88 F
 
Maximum: 34.2 °C = 94 F
Average: 32.9 °C = 91 F
31.1 °C
88 F
33.9 °C
93 F
34.4 °C
94 F
30.8 °C
87 F
33.4 °C
92 F
33.2 °C
92 F
31.2 °C
88 F
32.1 °C
90 F
32.3 °C
90 F
Maximum: 34.4 °C = 94 F
Average: 32.5 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  29.8 °C = 86 F | Room Temperature 20.1 °C = 68 F | Voltcraft IR-260

Speaker

Pink noise
Pink noise

The single bottom-firing mono speaker can get rather loud, but its highs were so massively over-pronounced that mids and lows got all but lost along the way.

The included headphones were just mediocre at best. They produced a thin and tinny soundscape and continuously and vehemently refused to stay put in our ears. Analog audio performance over the 3.5-mm headphone jack was decent and capable of producing high-quality audio with the right equipment.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2033.930.52528.436.63136.133.24030.930.35030.629.96322.2328024.92510024.427.912523.52716020.326.720019.83125018.237.331517.447.540016.657.150017.159.463015.963.880015.970.5100015.969.7125016.773.216001673.8200015.971.2250016.275.4315016.477.240001776.8500016.573.5630016.472.7800016.675.8100001775.61250016.565.91600016.950.6SPL28.685.9N1.162.6median 16.6median 69.7Delta1.613.535.237.732.937.637.238.131.733.339.633.728.333.227.330.926.929.926.729.1243120.937.720.946.219.548.718.556.317.559.817.564.315.766.215.87416.67515.87515.47315.572.61675.815.876.51674.116.372.516.372.116.266.716.461.916.452.728.685.41.160.3median 16.4median 66.22.113hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseNokia 3.1Motorola Moto G6 Play
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Nokia 3.1 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 36.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 5.6% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (3.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 58% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 76% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 19% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Motorola Moto G6 Play audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.4 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.3% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.7% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (25.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 50% of all tested devices in this class were better, 12% similar, 38% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 72% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 22% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery Life

Power Consumption

In direct comparison with its immediate predecessor, the Nokia 3.1’s power consumption has been somewhat improved. When idle, it consumed less power than before despite its brighter display. Under load, on the other hand, its power consumption was slightly higher due to the more powerful SoC. Looking at its direct competitors the Nokia 3.1 did fairly well, and the only phone even more energy efficient was the Galaxy J5.

Charging the 2,990-mAh battery with the included charger from near empty to full took around 2.5 hours.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.11 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.68 / 1.33 / 1.37 Watt
Load midlight 4.02 / 5.89 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Nokia 3.1
2990 mAh
Nokia 3
2630 mAh
Honor 7C
3000 mAh
Gigaset GS185
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
3000 mAh
Motorola Moto G6 Play
4000 mAh
Average Mediatek MT6750N
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
11%
-10%
-1%
31%
-10%
0%
-21%
Idle Minimum *
0.68
0.67
1%
0.6
12%
0.54
21%
0.52
24%
0.68
-0%
0.68
-0%
0.884 (0.2 - 3.4, n=612)
-30%
Idle Average *
1.33
1.35
-2%
2.16
-62%
1.74
-31%
1.17
12%
1.8
-35%
1.33
-0%
1.725 (0.6 - 6.2, n=611)
-30%
Idle Maximum *
1.37
1.39
-1%
2.24
-64%
1.78
-30%
1.24
9%
1.83
-34%
1.37
-0%
1.997 (0.74 - 6.6, n=612)
-46%
Load Average *
4.02
3.1
23%
2.59
36%
3.55
12%
1.66
59%
3.38
16%
4.02
-0%
4.03 (0.8 - 10.8, n=606)
-0%
Load Maximum *
5.89
4.02
32%
4.11
30%
4.66
21%
2.94
50%
5.67
4%
5.89
-0%
5.7 (1.2 - 14.2, n=606)
3%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

In our Wi-Fi test simulating typical web browsing load under normalized conditions (150 nits display brightness) the Nokia 3.1 lasted for a good 9+ hours. However, every single one of its competitors ran even longer.

In part, this may be because of bigger batteries, but it is also at least partly due to the slow SoC. Our review unit struggled noticeably when rendering websites and thus spent more time in high-load high frequency states. Nevertheless, the battery should easily last for a full day.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 67)
9h 22min
Nokia 3.1
2990 mAh
Nokia 3
2630 mAh
Honor 7C
3000 mAh
Gigaset GS185
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy J5 (2017) Duos
3000 mAh
Motorola Moto G6 Play
4000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-2%
23%
17%
31%
58%
Reader / Idle
1258
1564
WiFi v1.3
562
552
-2%
693
23%
658
17%
738
31%
887
58%
Load
283
449
H.264
628
917

Pros

+ bright display
+ accurate GPS
+ full-fledged dual SIM
+ expandable memory
+ fast Wi-Fi
+ Android One

Cons

- mediocre speaker
- no fingerprint reader
- old SoC
- not much memory

Verdict

In review: Nokia 3 (2018). Review unit courtesy of HMD Global Germany.
In review: Nokia 3.1. Review unit courtesy of HMD Global Germany.

The new Nokia 3.1 is a well-made enhancement of last year’s model. Its highlights are the bright display, its full-fledged dual-SIM capabilities, its very accurate GPS, and the fact that it is running Android One. Considering the device’s low price, it looks like a great deal to us despite its flaws.

The Nokia 3.1 would have received our full endorsement if only it wasn’t for the missing fingerprint reader.

The speaker turned out to be pretty poor when listening to music or trying to make a phone call on speakerphone. The device also lacked a fingerprint reader, which has become quite common in the past year in this price range. The cameras were far from perfect but definitely much improved over last year’s model.

All things considered the Nokia 3.1 is a well-made device with some trade-offs. If you do not mind them it is definitely worth taking a closer look at.

Nokia 3.1 - 07/31/2018 v6
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
79%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
88%
Connectivity
39 / 60 → 64%
Weight
93%
Battery
92%
Display
84%
Games Performance
13 / 63 → 20%
Application Performance
39 / 70 → 56%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
54 / 91 → 59%
Camera
59%
Average
69%
80%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 3 comments / answer
static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Nokia 3.1 Smartphone Review
Daniel Schmidt, 2018-08- 3 (Update: 2018-08- 3)