Notebookcheck

Nokia 5.3 Smartphone Review - Slim Android-One mobile phone

A ring of cameras. The Nokia 5.3 offers a quad camera, a large display and a long lasting battery for relatively little money. However, it has strong competition in its price range.
Florian Schmitt, 👁 Florian Schmitt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy),
Nokia 5.3
Nokia 5.3 (5 Series)
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 8 x 2.2 GHz, Kryo 260
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.55 inch 20:9, 1600 x 720 pixel 268 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, 60 Hz
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, 48 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5mm, Card Reader: microSD up to 512 GB, dedicated, 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Acceleration sensor, Proximity sensor
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 4.2, 2G (850/​900/​1800/​1900), 3G (B1/​B2/​B5/​B8), 4G (B1/​B3/​B5/​B7/​B8/​B20/​B28/​B38/​B40/​B41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.5 x 164.3 x 76.6 ( = 0.33 x 6.47 x 3.02 in)
Battery
4000 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Operating System
Android 10
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix f/1.8, phase comparison AF, LED flash, video @1080p/30fps (camera 1); 5.0MP, wide angle lens (camera 2); 2.0MP, macro lens (camera 3); 2.0MP, depth of field (camera 4)
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix f/​2.0
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker at the lower edge, Keyboard: Virtual, Charger, USB cable, headset, SIM tool, 24 Months Warranty, LTE Cat 4 (150Mbps/​50Mbps); UKW-Radio, fanless
Weight
185 g ( = 6.53 oz / 0.41 pounds), Power Supply: 63 g ( = 2.22 oz / 0.14 pounds)
Price
199 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Vergleichsgeräte

Bewertung
Rating Version
Datum
Modell
Gewicht
Laufwerk
Groesse
Aufloesung
Preis ab
76 %7
05/2020
Nokia 5.3
SD 665, Adreno 610
185 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.55"1600x720
81 %7
05/2020
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
SD 720G, Adreno 618
209 g128 GB UFS 2.0 Flash6.67"2400x1080
77 %7
06/2020
Huawei P smart Pro
Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4
206 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.59"2340x1080
78 %7
11/2019
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
SD 665, Adreno 610
188 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.30"2280x1080

Case, features and operation - Updates are secure thanks to Android One

The Nokia 5.3 is available in three colors, with the sand-colored device certainly the most extraordinary. Dark grey and blue are the other options. At 185 grams, the Nokia 5.3 is relatively light for its size and with a maximum height of 8.5 millimeters, it is also quite slim. The plastic back with a slightly shiny matt finish looks good and the case is reasonably pressure resistant. Thanks to the rounded corners, the phone fits well in the hand.

64 GB memory is acceptable in this price range, but you can also get 128 GB from other manufacturers for 20 euro more. The microSD reader is independent of the SIM slots, so that you can use all three at the same time. The LTE modem is relatively slow and hardly supports more than the most necessary frequencies. When it comes to WLAN, the Nokia 5.3 shows itself in our test with the reference router Linksys Nighthawk AX12 with quite fluctuating transfer rates, which overall are on a medium level for the class.

The Nokia 5.3 is part of Google's Android One program and is thus guaranteed to be supplied with software updates for another three years. The security patches on our test device were up to date.

The touchscreen is easy to use and is sensitive even in the corners. There is a dedicated fingerprint sensor on the back, which unlocks the device with minimal delay and reliably recognizes fingerprints.

Nokia 5.3
Nokia 5.3
Nokia 5.3
Nokia 5.3
Nokia 5.3
Nokia 5.3
Nokia 5.3

Size comparison

165.8 mm / 6.53 inch 76.7 mm / 3.02 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 209 g0.4608 lbs164.3 mm / 6.47 inch 76.6 mm / 3.02 inch 8.5 mm / 0.3346 inch 185 g0.4079 lbs163.1 mm / 6.42 inch 77.2 mm / 3.04 inch 8.8 mm / 0.3465 inch 206 g0.4542 lbs158.4 mm / 6.24 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 9.1 mm / 0.3583 inch 188 g0.4145 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
286 (225min - 321max) MBit/s ∼100% +97%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
182 (11min - 259max) MBit/s ∼64% +26%
Nokia 5.3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
145 (20min - 215max) MBit/s ∼51%
Huawei P smart Pro
802.11 b/g/n
42.4 MBit/s ∼15% -71%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
256 (247min - 263max) MBit/s ∼100% +57%
Nokia 5.3
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
163 (25min - 258max) MBit/s ∼64%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
152 (1min - 254max) MBit/s ∼59% -7%
Huawei P smart Pro
802.11 b/g/n
51.5 (19min - 90max) MBit/s ∼20% -68%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø145 (20-215)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø163 (25-258)

Cameras - Four times moderate quality

A ring-shaped camera module on the back contains the four lenses of the main camera. One of them we will skip here, it only serves for the depth of field and cannot take own photos. The main camera has a resolution of 13 megapixels. Surfaces pixelate visibly as soon as the surrounding light is not very bright. Generally, the pictures are quite dark. They offer strong colors, which is certainly a matter of taste. The contrast level of the camera is altogether ok, but in low light it lacks sharpness. With almost no light at all, the camera hardly recognizes image content.

A wide-angle and a macro camera are built in as additional lenses. The wide-angle lens offers 5 megapixels and takes very grainy photos in a slightly weaker light, but blurred in the peripheral areas. In daylight, the colours look very dull and the level of detail is not particularly high. The macro lens takes reasonable photos, but suffers from its very low resolution of just 2 megapixels.

Zooming in several steps between the lenses is not possible, you can only switch directly.

The front camera has a resolution of 8 megapixels and takes pictures that are quite well lit, but a little grainy in detail.

Update: Nokia has provided us with a new test device with improved software, our original test device did not have the final retail software installed. In fact, the camera images now appear brighter and in low light not quite as grainy. We therefore decided to raise the camera rating slightly, which also gives the Nokia 5.3 one percent more in the overall rating. But this does not change our overall assessment, which you can read in the verdict.

Recording front camera
Recording front camera
Recording Macro camera
Recording Macro camera
Recording with current retail software
Recording with current retail software
Recording with current retail software
Recording with current retail software
Recording with current retail software
Recording with current retail software
 

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
ColorChecker
29.8 ∆E
54.3 ∆E
38.8 ∆E
37.8 ∆E
44.2 ∆E
62.8 ∆E
54.2 ∆E
34.8 ∆E
42.7 ∆E
27.1 ∆E
65.8 ∆E
64.5 ∆E
30.3 ∆E
48.1 ∆E
36.6 ∆E
76.8 ∆E
42.6 ∆E
42.9 ∆E
92.1 ∆E
70.7 ∆E
52.1 ∆E
36.6 ∆E
24 ∆E
13.6 ∆E
ColorChecker Nokia 5.3: 46.8 ∆E min: 13.55 - max: 92.11 ∆E
ColorChecker
19.3 ∆E
13.8 ∆E
14.8 ∆E
21.1 ∆E
13.4 ∆E
10.4 ∆E
14 ∆E
11.9 ∆E
8.6 ∆E
9.2 ∆E
11.6 ∆E
12.1 ∆E
9.4 ∆E
16.4 ∆E
8.4 ∆E
6.6 ∆E
7.4 ∆E
12.2 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
6.9 ∆E
9.5 ∆E
10.3 ∆E
8.1 ∆E
3.9 ∆E
ColorChecker Nokia 5.3: 10.95 ∆E min: 3.33 - max: 21.07 ∆E

Display - Low resolution and blue cast

Sub-pixel Array
Sub-pixel Array

The screen has a resolution of 1,600 x 720 pixels, which is OK for this class, but there are also similarly expensive devices with extended Full HD resolution. The brightness of the display is very variable, and while the centre is very bright, the edges are much less well lit. On average, it's only enough for a mediocre brightness at best, but on very bright days outdoors you'll have problems seeing anything on the display.

We can detect a visible blue cast in our tests with the spectrophotometer, and the color deviations are also very high. The black value and the contrast are on a decent level.

477
cd/m²
479
cd/m²
491
cd/m²
488
cd/m²
523
cd/m²
497
cd/m²
468
cd/m²
450
cd/m²
469
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 523 cd/m² Average: 482.4 cd/m² Minimum: 4.58 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 86 %
Center on Battery: 523 cd/m²
Contrast: 1137:1 (Black: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 6.22 | 0.6-29.43 Ø5.7
ΔE Greyscale 8 | 0.64-98 Ø5.9
94.4% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.226
Nokia 5.3
IPS, 1600x720, 6.55
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
IPS, 2400x1080, 6.67
Huawei P smart Pro
TFT-LCD (LTPS), 2340x1080, 6.59
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
IPS, 2280x1080, 6.30
Response Times
21%
8%
28%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
56 (28, 28)
44 (21, 23)
21%
51.2 (21.2, 30)
9%
36 (17, 19)
36%
Response Time Black / White *
30 (15, 15)
24 (9, 15)
20%
28 (10, 18)
7%
24 (9, 15)
20%
PWM Frequency
463 (20)
Screen
18%
-3%
11%
Brightness middle
523
622
19%
480
-8%
597
14%
Brightness
482
612
27%
459
-5%
596
24%
Brightness Distribution
86
94
9%
87
1%
93
8%
Black Level *
0.46
0.56
-22%
0.47
-2%
0.52
-13%
Contrast
1137
1111
-2%
1021
-10%
1148
1%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
6.22
3.98
36%
5.7
8%
5.93
5%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.56
7.33
31%
11.3
-7%
9.42
11%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
8
4.5
44%
7.8
2%
5.3
34%
Gamma
2.226 99%
2.206 100%
2.27 97%
2.232 99%
CCT
8856 73%
7361 88%
8813 74%
7632 85%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
114.9
Total Average (Program / Settings)
20% / 18%
3% / -1%
20% / 14%

* ... 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
30 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 15 ms rise
↘ 15 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 240 (maximum) ms. » 73 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.3 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
56 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 28 ms rise
↘ 28 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. » 91 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (38.6 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 9604 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.


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

Performance, emissions and battery life - Hot flushes

The Qualcomm Snapdragon 665 is actually intended for exactly this price range, but the problem is that the competition, for example in the form of the Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S, doesn't stick to it and uses a much more powerful Snapdragon 720G.

Thus, the Nokia 5.3 has a performance gap to this competitor, but overall it is on class level. The SoC can't always avoid jerkiness in navigation and some tasks take noticeably longer than on faster mobile phones. There is still enough power available for simple apps, especially in view of the low resolution of the display. This is also evident in the graphics tests: The smartphone can keep up well with onscreen, as the graphics unit has to calculate fewer pixels.

Nokia only uses slow eMMC memory, so that the 5.3 can't keep up with all competitors here either. The microSD test with the Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card delivers decent transfer rates.

The Nokia 5.3 gets very warm under a longer load with a maximum of 51.7 °C. It can be unpleasant to touch the device in this state. In summer, in hot ambient temperatures, this problem could become even worse.

A 4,000 mAh battery has now become the standard in this price range, and the Nokia 5.3 meets this minimum requirement exactly. With 14:36 hours in our WLAN test, the device also performs bravely and can at least leave the Huawei P Smart Pro behind. Charging with 10 watts takes its time, but you should already expect 2:30 hours.

Geekbench 5.1 - 5.3
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1350 Points ∼68%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
1690 Points ∼86% +25%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
1356 Points ∼69% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1256 - 1405, n=7)
1346 Points ∼68% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (421 - 4160, n=142)
1973 Points ∼100% +46%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
312 Points ∼55%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
559 Points ∼98% +79%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
330 Points ∼58% +6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (309 - 313, n=7)
311 Points ∼55% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (124 - 1604, n=142)
570 Points ∼100% +83%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6775 Points ∼88%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
7673 Points ∼100% +13%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
6993 Points ∼91% +3%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
6534 Points ∼85% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6189 - 11432, n=11)
7048 Points ∼92% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 15299, n=541)
6024 Points ∼79% -11%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8538 Points ∼87%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
9027 Points ∼92% +6%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
9854 Points ∼100% +15%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8186 Points ∼83% -4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7437 - 9051, n=10)
8163 Points ∼83% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 19989, n=698)
6624 Points ∼67% -22%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2409 Points ∼74%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3256 Points ∼100% +35%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
2478 Points ∼76% +3%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2341 Points ∼72% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2154 - 2541, n=10)
2378 Points ∼73% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5780, n=547)
2256 Points ∼69% -6%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
999 Points ∼39%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2551 Points ∼100% +155%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
875 Points ∼34% -12%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
981 Points ∼38% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (980 - 999, n=10)
988 Points ∼39% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 12146, n=547)
2234 Points ∼88% +124%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1148 Points ∼43%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2680 Points ∼100% +133%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
991 Points ∼37% -14%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1126 Points ∼42% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1097 - 1151, n=10)
1135 Points ∼42% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 9643, n=548)
2070 Points ∼77% +80%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2396 Points ∼73%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3267 Points ∼100% +36%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
2496 Points ∼76% +4%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2393 Points ∼73% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2199 - 2503, n=11)
2365 Points ∼72% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5765, n=579)
2173 Points ∼67% -9%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1692 Points ∼44%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3803 Points ∼100% +125%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
1342 Points ∼35% -21%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1670 Points ∼44% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1650 - 1692, n=11)
1668 Points ∼44% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 21465, n=579)
3035 Points ∼80% +79%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1810 Points ∼49%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3669 Points ∼100% +103%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
1508 Points ∼41% -17%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1790 Points ∼49% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1754 - 1810, n=11)
1786 Points ∼49% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 11895, n=579)
2515 Points ∼69% +39%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2476 Points ∼79%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3152 Points ∼100% +27%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
2456 Points ∼78% -1%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2424 Points ∼77% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2212 - 2580, n=11)
2417 Points ∼77% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (435 - 5262, n=628)
2133 Points ∼68% -14%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
999 Points ∼42%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2369 Points ∼100% +137%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
845 Points ∼36% -15%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
979 Points ∼41% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (927 - 999, n=11)
968 Points ∼41% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 11573, n=628)
1878 Points ∼79% +88%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1152 Points ∼46%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
2507 Points ∼100% +118%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
999 Points ∼40% -13%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1128 Points ∼45% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1076 - 1152, n=11)
1118 Points ∼45% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 9138, n=629)
1779 Points ∼71% +54%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2482 Points ∼81%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3070 Points ∼100% +24%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
2487 Points ∼81% 0%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2452 Points ∼80% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2282 - 2596, n=11)
2429 Points ∼79% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 5274, n=670)
2004 Points ∼65% -19%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1663 Points ∼46%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3647 Points ∼100% +119%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
1335 Points ∼37% -20%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1634 Points ∼45% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1564 - 1663, n=11)
1622 Points ∼44% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 16670, n=669)
2485 Points ∼68% +49%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1795 Points ∼51%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
3501 Points ∼100% +95%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
1489 Points ∼43% -17%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
1765 Points ∼50% -2%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (1675 - 1795, n=11)
1750 Points ∼50% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 11256, n=672)
2123 Points ∼61% +18%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
20320 Points ∼91%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
20019 Points ∼89% -1%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
22398 Points ∼100% +10%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
18698 Points ∼83% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (17865 - 24652, n=10)
20916 Points ∼93% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 59268, n=815)
15783 Points ∼70% -22%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
15403 Points ∼29%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
52700 Points ∼100% +242%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
2177 Points ∼4% -86%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24992 Points ∼47% +62%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (15403 - 25351, n=10)
23960 Points ∼45% +56%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 221179, n=813)
28213 Points ∼54% +83%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
24065 Points ∼62%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
38671 Points ∼100% +61%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
21876 Points ∼57% -9%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
23253 Points ∼60% -3%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (22445 - 25046, n=10)
23870 Points ∼62% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 117606, n=813)
21752 Points ∼56% -10%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.8 fps ∼75%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
11 fps ∼94% +25%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
2.3 fps ∼20% -74%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
4.5 fps ∼38% -49%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (3.9 - 9.1, n=11)
5.65 fps ∼48% -36%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=340)
11.7 fps ∼100% +33%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.8 fps ∼34%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
7 fps ∼85% +150%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
4 fps ∼49% +43%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
2.8 fps ∼34% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (2.7 - 2.8, n=11)
2.77 fps ∼34% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 101, n=338)
8.23 fps ∼100% +194%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
14 fps ∼80%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Qualcomm Snapdragon 720G, Adreno 618, 6144
17 fps ∼98% +21%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
6.1 fps ∼35% -56%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
7.6 fps ∼44% -46%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (6.2 - 15, n=11)
9.31 fps ∼54% -33%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=344)
17.4 fps ∼100% +24%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 5.3
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.3 fps ∼42%
Huawei P smart Pro
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 6144
7 fps ∼35% -16%
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 4096
8.2 fps ∼41% -1%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 665
  (7.8 - 8.4, n=11)
8.13 fps ∼41% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 257, n=343)
20 fps ∼100% +141%
Nokia 5.3Xiaomi Redmi Note 9SHuawei P smart ProMotorola Moto G8 PlusAverage 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
40%
76%
17%
-21%
-19%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
60.71 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
54.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-10%
68.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
14%
52.2 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
58 (11.2 - 74.7, n=131)
-4%
51.4 (1.7 - 87.1, n=549)
-15%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
77.33 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
74.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-4%
76.52 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
72.6 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-6%
77.1 (21.1 - 87.2, n=131)
0%
69.4 (8.1 - 96.5, n=549)
-10%
Random Write 4KB
45.2
123.6
173%
156.34
246%
124.9
176%
27.7 (3.4 - 147, n=149)
-39%
38.2 (0.14 - 319, n=910)
-15%
Random Read 4KB
109.1
137
26%
154.29
41%
59.9
-45%
56.2 (11.4 - 149, n=149)
-48%
61.4 (1.59 - 325, n=910)
-44%
Sequential Write 256KB
243.2
214.8
-12%
195.43
-20%
217.4
-11%
175 (40 - 254, n=149)
-28%
134 (2.99 - 1321, n=910)
-45%
Sequential Read 256KB
299.5
496.6
66%
821.6
174%
302.5
1%
272 (95.6 - 704, n=149)
-9%
354 (12.1 - 2037, n=910)
18%

Temperature

Max. Load
 51.7 °C
125 F
46.7 °C
116 F
41.9 °C
107 F
 
 50.3 °C
123 F
44.4 °C
112 F
42 °C
108 F
 
 48.7 °C
120 F
44.8 °C
113 F
42 °C
108 F
 
Maximum: 51.7 °C = 125 F
Average: 45.8 °C = 114 F
39.9 °C
104 F
45.9 °C
115 F
51.1 °C
124 F
40.5 °C
105 F
46.1 °C
115 F
49.9 °C
122 F
41.4 °C
107 F
46.2 °C
115 F
50.7 °C
123 F
Maximum: 51.1 °C = 124 F
Average: 45.7 °C = 114 F
Power Supply (max.)  42.6 °C = 109 F | Room Temperature 21.2 °C = 70 F | Fluke t3000FC (calibrated), Voltcraft IR-260
(-) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 45.8 °C / 114 F, compared to the average of 32.9 °C / 91 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(-) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 51.7 °C / 125 F, compared to the average of 35.3 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 51.1 °C / 124 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F
(±) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 33.5 °C / 92 F, compared to the device average of 32.9 °C / 91 F.


Heatmap Backside
Heatmap Backside
Heatmap Front
Heatmap Front

Speakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2035.4362539.736.7312827.74027.429.55029.835.86325.832.28022.223.610023.422.412521.222.316019.224.820018.931.22501937.831517.242.24001647.350016.755.863018.856.880014.763.8100015.669.212501467160013.966.7200014.462.9250014.761.7315014.359.340001558500015.764.9630015.865.2800015.764.71000016.255.61250015.750.51600015.940.4SPL71.86327.676.1N26.315134.9median 15.8median 56.8Delta1.911.832.430.53531.927.126.4262730.431.225.228.822.722.525.522.120.124.719.235.417.839.417.845.916.149.916.655.715.962.514.365.514.770.414.873.614.37114.165.116.369.114.472.313.868.713.970.414.264.414.559.114.666.41568.115.359.115.751.660.964.571.226.98113.817.725.60.948.4median 15median 64.41.610.7hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseNokia 5.3Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Nokia 5.3 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 26.7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.9% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (28.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 81% of all tested devices in this class were better, 5% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 87% of all tested devices were better, 3% similar, 10% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (81 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 28.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.8% away from median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.2% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 36% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 51% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 24%, worst was 65%
Compared to all devices tested
» 60% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 32% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 65%

Battery life

Nokia 5.3
4000 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S
5020 mAh
Huawei P smart Pro
4000 mAh
Motorola Moto G8 Plus
4000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
876
1187
36%
757
-14%
980
12%
704 (223 - 2636, n=777)
-20%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
14h 36min

Pros

+ Relatively slim and light
+ up-to-date software
+ good battery life
+ dedicated microSD reader
+ flexible camera system...

Cons

- ... with mediocre quality
- excessive heating under load
- eMMC Flash only
- fluctuating data rates in WLAN
- heavy blue cast in the display

Verdict - Too little offered

In review: Nokia 5.3 test device provided by Nokia Germany.
In review: Nokia 5.3 test device provided by Nokia Germany.

The Nokia 5.3 looks a little like it's a year late. Last year, it could have been credited with a relatively large battery, a flexible camera system and decent performance for its class. In 2020, however, for 200 euros it will be too little compared to the competition and will make mistakes that we can hardly forgive even with a 200-euro device:

There is the much too high heating under longer load, even at room temperature. There are the fluctuating WLAN data rates and the slow LTE. And a heavy blue cast on the screen really doesn't have to be any more in 2020.

The Nokia 5.3 has a few weaknesses and therefore falls considerably behind similarly expensive competitors.

Sure, the Nokia 5.3 is quite light and slim, it offers reasonable runtimes and also the power is sufficient for simple everyday use. The software is up-to-date and for the next two years you are on the safe side in terms of updates thanks to Android One. However, since the camera as a whole can hardly convince either and there are simply so many better offers from other manufacturers, we find it difficult to make a recommendation for the Nokia phone.

At best, if it is quickly available at a much lower price, the phone could be suitable for undemanding users.

Nokia 5.3 - 07/02/2020 v7
Florian Schmitt

Chassis
76%
Keyboard
65 / 75 → 87%
Pointing Device
94%
Connectivity
43 / 70 → 62%
Weight
89%
Battery
90%
Display
82%
Games Performance
15 / 64 → 23%
Application Performance
64 / 86 → 75%
Temperature
78%
Noise
100%
Audio
62 / 90 → 69%
Camera
44%
Average
70%
76%
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 5.3 Smartphone Review - Slim Android-One mobile phone
Florian Schmitt, 2020-05-26 (Update: 2020-07- 6)
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.