Notebookcheck

Nokia 7.2 Review - Good smartphone with errors in detail

Daniel Schmidt, 👁 Daniel Schmidt (translated by DeepL / Ninh Duy), 11/15/2019

Brave Finn. After an excellent start of the 7-series, the Nokia 7.1 provided long faces in the test, because especially its battery life could not convince. With the Nokia 7.2 everything is supposed to get better and HMD Global is adding a thick scoop of battery performance, more memory and a triple camera.

Nokia 7.2 (7 Series)
Graphics adapter
Memory
4096 MB 
Display
6.3 inch 19.5:9, 2340 x 1080 pixel 409 PPI, Capacitive, IPS, PureDisplay, glossy: yes
Storage
64 GB eMMC Flash, 64 GB 
, , 51.56 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: Audioklinke (3,5 mm), Card Reader: microSD up to 512 GB (FAT, FAT32), 1 Fingerprint Reader, NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: RGB, proximity and acceleration sensor, e-compass, gyroscope
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM/GPRS/Edge (850, 900, 1,800 and 1,900 MHz), UMTS/HSPA+ (bands 1, 5 and 8), LTE Cat. 6 (bands 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40 and 41), Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 8.25 x 159.92 x 75.15 ( = 0.32 x 6.3 x 2.96 in)
Battery
0 Wh, 3500 mAh Lithium-Polymer
Charging
fast charging / Quickcharge
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 48 MPix (f/1.8, 1/2", 0.8 µm) + 8 MPix (f/2.2, 13 mm) + 5 MPiX; Zeiss optics, Camera2 API: Level 3
Secondary Camera: 20 MPix (f/2.0, Quad-Pixel)
Additional features
Speakers: Mono, Keyboard: Virtual, Power supply, USB cable, Headset, SIM tool, Quick guide, Android One, 24 Months Warranty, Head SAR: 1,497 W/kg, Body SAR: 1,444 W/kg, fanless
Weight
180 g ( = 6.35 oz / 0.4 pounds), Power Supply: 64 g ( = 2.26 oz / 0.14 pounds)
Price
300 Euro
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Working For Notebookcheck

Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!

Currently wanted: 
News and Editorial Editor - Details here

Comparison Units

BewertungRating VersionDatumModellGewichtLaufwerkGroesseAufloesungPreis ab
79%711/2019Nokia 7.2
660, Adreno 512
180 g64 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080
80%704/2019Samsung Galaxy A50
Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3
166 g128 GB UFS 2.1 Flash6.4"2340x1080
78%705/2019Huawei P30 Lite
Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4
159 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.15"2312x1080
79%711/2019Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
665, Adreno 610
190 g128 GB eMMC Flash6.3"2340x1080

Case, Equipment and Operation

We really like the quality of Nokia 7.2's workmanship. The gap dimensions fit perfectly and the panel is comparatively insensitive to pressure. Moreover, our green test device is really chic and the matt glass back is less susceptible to fingerprints. 

The operating system is Android 9.0 Pie. As the Nokia 7.2 also uses Android One, regular updates can be expected for two years, Android 10 will be distributed until the beginning of 2020. 

The mobile radio frequency coverage is completely sufficient for the European area and HMD Global provides the Nokia mobile phone with a fast WLAN module, which shows stable transmission rates in the test. 

The microSD card slot officially supports media up to a size of 512 GB, but does not support the exFAT file system. The USB 2.0 port (Type-C) supports USB OTG and Power Delivery, but cannot be used for image output. NFC, Bluetooth 5.0 and an analogue radio receiver make the equipment almost complete. The Nokia 7.2 is also advanced in GNSS support and can process single-band signals from GPS, Glonass, BeiDou, QZSS and Galileo. 

The physical keys have a little play in the case, but clearly defined pressure points. There's also a dedicated button for the Google Assistant and a fingerprint sensor on the back that does its job quite reliably and takes the user straight to the surface. Alternatively, less reliable 2D face recognition is also available. 

Size Comparison

159.92 mm / 6.3 inch 75.15 mm / 2.96 inch 8.25 mm / 0.3248 inch 180 g0.3968 lbs158.3 mm / 6.23 inch 75.3 mm / 2.96 inch 8.3 mm / 0.3268 inch 190 g0.4189 lbs158.5 mm / 6.24 inch 74.7 mm / 2.94 inch 7.7 mm / 0.3031 inch 166 g0.366 lbs152.9 mm / 6.02 inch 72.7 mm / 2.86 inch 7.4 mm / 0.2913 inch 159 g0.3505 lbs149.7 mm / 5.89 inch 71.2 mm / 2.8 inch 8 mm / 0.315 inch 160 g0.3527 lbs
Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Nokia 7.2
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
344 (min: 336, max: 352) MBit/s ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
339 (min: 320, max: 349) MBit/s ∼99% -1%
Samsung Galaxy A50
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
294 (min: 278, max: 302) MBit/s ∼85% -15%
Huawei P30 Lite
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
188 (min: 45, max: 237) MBit/s ∼55% -45%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
303 (min: 242, max: 355) MBit/s ∼100% +2%
Nokia 7.2
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
296 (min: 223, max: 308) MBit/s ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy A50
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
272 (min: 250, max: 285) MBit/s ∼90% -8%
Huawei P30 Lite
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac
218 (min: 95, max: 239) MBit/s ∼72% -26%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360Tooltip
; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø344 (336-352)
; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø296 (223-308)

Cameras - Triple camera in Nokia 7.2

In addition to the main sensor (48 MP, Samsung Isocell-GM1), the Nokia 7.2's triple camera offers a 5 MP lens for collecting depth information and an 8 MP ultra-wide angle (118 degrees). In daylight, balanced shots are possible, which convince with a good dynamic range, but are somewhat oversharpened. In low ambient light, the shots look too cool and details are blurred. 

At best, videos are recorded in Ultra HD (30 FPS) and supported by OZO Audio. The ultra wide angle can also be used without restrictions, but delivers a considerably worse picture quality. It is not possible to switch between the lenses during recording. 

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 Photo
26.1 ∆E
46.6 ∆E
34.5 ∆E
37.6 ∆E
38.1 ∆E
57.6 ∆E
47.4 ∆E
28.6 ∆E
32 ∆E
21 ∆E
57.5 ∆E
59.1 ∆E
25.4 ∆E
43.2 ∆E
27 ∆E
64.8 ∆E
34.4 ∆E
42.8 ∆E
64.7 ∆E
62.3 ∆E
46.4 ∆E
34.3 ∆E
22.7 ∆E
13 ∆E
ColorChecker Nokia 7.2: 40.3 ∆E min: 12.99 - max: 64.82 ∆E
ColorChecker Photo
16 ∆E
8.5 ∆E
12.2 ∆E
17.7 ∆E
8.2 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
11.8 ∆E
9.6 ∆E
12.7 ∆E
7.7 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
5.4 ∆E
10.2 ∆E
13.9 ∆E
4.4 ∆E
8.9 ∆E
7.6 ∆E
9.7 ∆E
3.3 ∆E
3.7 ∆E
6.3 ∆E
4.6 ∆E
6.8 ∆E
ColorChecker Nokia 7.2: 8.61 ∆E min: 3.25 - max: 17.7 ∆E
Testchart @ 2.500 Lux
Testchart @ 1 Lux
Selfie with the Nokia 7.2

Display - Good IPS in Nokia phone, but with PWM

Subpixel arrangement

The Nokia 7.2's 6.3-inch IPS display offers high pixel density. The brightness of the panel is also high, the illumination is even and the color display is improved compared to the predecessor. Unfortunately Nokia again uses pulse width modulation for brightness control, which won't bother most users due to the high frequency, but especially sensitive people could still show complaints. 

The HMD smartphone does really well outdoors, only the reflective display makes it difficult to read on sunny days. 

581
cd/m²
589
cd/m²
607
cd/m²
587
cd/m²
604
cd/m²
590
cd/m²
600
cd/m²
613
cd/m²
567
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 613 cd/m² Average: 593.1 cd/m² Minimum: 5.65 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 92 %
Center on Battery: 604 cd/m²
Contrast: 1510:1 (Black: 0.4 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.1 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 6.4 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
100% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.23
Nokia 7.2
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Nokia 7.1
IPS, 2280x1080, 5.84
Samsung Galaxy A50
AMOLED, 2340x1080, 6.4
Huawei P30 Lite
IPS LCD, 2312x1080, 6.15
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
IPS, 2340x1080, 6.3
Response Times
8%
20%
-28%
-5%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
48 (21, 27)
43.6 (20.4, 23.2)
9%
8 (5, 3)
83%
54.4 (26, 28.4)
-13%
49.6 (23.6, 26)
-3%
Response Time Black / White *
22 (5, 17)
18.4 (6, 12.4)
16%
6 (3, 3)
73%
31.2 (14.8, 16.4)
-42%
23.6 (9.6, 14)
-7%
PWM Frequency
2315 (19)
2315 (21)
0%
119
-95%
Screen
-18%
22%
7%
23%
Brightness middle
604
577
-4%
644
7%
451
-25%
656
9%
Brightness
593
550
-7%
628
6%
430
-27%
643
8%
Brightness Distribution
92
91
-1%
91
-1%
90
-2%
95
3%
Black Level *
0.4
0.36
10%
0.55
-38%
0.54
-35%
Contrast
1510
1603
6%
820
-46%
1215
-20%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.1
7.4
-45%
2.64
48%
1.4
73%
1.1
78%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
10.3
15
-46%
9.23
10%
4.4
57%
2.4
77%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
6.4
10.2
-59%
2.5
61%
2.5
61%
2.2
66%
Gamma
2.23 99%
2.29 96%
2.024 109%
2.22 99%
2.2 100%
CCT
8149 80%
9657 67%
6649 98%
6422 101%
6263 104%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-5% / -11%
21% / 21%
-11% / -0%
9% / 18%

* ... 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
22 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 5 ms rise
↘ 17 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. » 27 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
48 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21 ms rise
↘ 27 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. » 78 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.4 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 detected 2315 Hz ≤ 19 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 2315 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 19 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 2315 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 51 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 9347 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.


Grayscale (target color space: sRGB)
Grayscale (target color space: sRGB)
Mixed colors (target color space: sRGB)
Mixed colors (target color space: sRGB)
Color space (target color space: sRGB)
Color space (target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (target color space: sRGB)
Saturation (target color space: sRGB)
Angle stability
Outdoor

Performance, Emissions and Battery life

The Nokia 7.2 is powered by the meanwhile aging Snapdragon 660, which is supported by 4 GB RAM. The combo provides a smooth system performance, with which only rarely smaller jerkers are recognizable. Those who like to use elaborate 3D games will have to reduce the level of detail if necessary. The memory speed is good, only when writing small data blocks the Nokia phone weakens a little.

The surface temperatures of the Nokia 7.2 are harmless at all times and the included power supply barely warms up. Under constant load, the smartphone just gets lukewarm. 

The loudspeaker at the lower edge delivers a solid sound in the medium volume range. If you turn the smartphone up to the limit, you get a rather tinny sound that can't inspire much. The audio jack offers an alternative, if you prefer wireless headphones or speakers, you can use high-resolution audio codecs such as aptX HD or LDAC. 

The battery life of the 3,500 mAh rechargeable battery will get a user through the day well, but there won't be many reserves left. 

Geekbench 5
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1483 Points ∼75%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1327 Points ∼67% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1127 - 1483, n=2)
1305 Points ∼66% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (807 - 3575, n=46)
1979 Points ∼100% +33%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
313 Points ∼55%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
314 Points ∼55% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (313 - 330, n=2)
322 Points ∼56% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (155 - 1344, n=46)
572 Points ∼100% +83%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
5917 Points ∼91%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
5827 Points ∼90% -2%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
6483 Points ∼100% +10%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
6498 Points ∼100% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (5789 - 6187, n=11)
6012 Points ∼93% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=398)
5367 Points ∼83% -9%
Work performance score (sort by value)
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
7029 Points ∼87%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
8125 Points ∼100%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
7446 Points ∼92%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (6274 - 7026, n=10)
6654 Points ∼82%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=565)
5831 Points ∼72%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2693 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2266 Points ∼84% -16%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2550 Points ∼95% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2298 Points ∼85% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (2121 - 2797, n=11)
2658 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5576, n=405)
1996 Points ∼74% -26%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1256 Points ∼69%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1188 Points ∼66% -5%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
843 Points ∼47% -33%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
980 Points ∼54% -22%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1134 - 1268, n=11)
1237 Points ∼68% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=405)
1811 Points ∼100% +44%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1425 Points ∼85%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1328 Points ∼79% -7%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
981 Points ∼58% -31%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1134 Points ∼67% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1270 - 1442, n=11)
1405 Points ∼84% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=406)
1681 Points ∼100% +18%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2640 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2241 Points ∼83% -15%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2578 Points ∼96% -2%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2348 Points ∼87% -11%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (2238 - 2815, n=11)
2695 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=434)
1905 Points ∼71% -28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2007 Points ∼83%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1553 Points ∼64% -23%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1336 Points ∼55% -33%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1668 Points ∼69% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1734 - 2033, n=11)
1940 Points ∼80% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=434)
2414 Points ∼100% +20%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2120 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1667 Points ∼79% -21%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1494 Points ∼70% -30%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1778 Points ∼84% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1887 - 2151, n=11)
2061 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=434)
2027 Points ∼96% -4%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2649 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2351 Points ∼89% -11%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2489 Points ∼94% -6%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2408 Points ∼91% -9%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1883 - 2759, n=11)
2579 Points ∼97% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4909, n=485)
1902 Points ∼72% -28%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1181 Points ∼79%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1149 Points ∼77% -3%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
819 Points ∼55% -31%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
967 Points ∼64% -18%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1061 - 1201, n=11)
1174 Points ∼78% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=485)
1501 Points ∼100% +27%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1347 Points ∼93%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1296 Points ∼90% -4%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
963 Points ∼67% -29%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1114 Points ∼77% -17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1175 - 1372, n=12)
1339 Points ∼93% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=486)
1444 Points ∼100% +7%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2632 Points ∼98%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
2432 Points ∼90% -8%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2490 Points ∼92% -5%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2378 Points ∼88% -10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (2383 - 2834, n=11)
2693 Points ∼100% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=526)
1765 Points ∼66% -33%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1913 Points ∼97%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1279 Points ∼65% -33%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1256 Points ∼64% -34%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1607 Points ∼82% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1711 - 1938, n=11)
1893 Points ∼96% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=525)
1967 Points ∼100% +3%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2037 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
1430 Points ∼70% -30%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
1414 Points ∼69% -31%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
1728 Points ∼85% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (1825 - 2073, n=11)
2026 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=528)
1697 Points ∼83% -17%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
18094 Points ∼89%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
14353 Points ∼71% -21%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
12023 Points ∼59% -34%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
20354 Points ∼100% +12%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (15088 - 21016, n=11)
19242 Points ∼95% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=686)
14321 Points ∼70% -21%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
28898 Points ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16593 Points ∼57% -43%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
21643 Points ∼75% -25%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
24654 Points ∼85% -15%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (25561 - 29496, n=11)
28596 Points ∼99% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=684)
22437 Points ∼78% -22%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
25513 Points ∼99%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
16037 Points ∼62% -37%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
18377 Points ∼71% -28%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
23534 Points ∼91% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (22145 - 26731, n=11)
25782 Points ∼100% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=684)
18114 Points ∼70% -29%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
4.9 fps ∼49%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
4.9 fps ∼49% 0%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
4.2 fps ∼42% -14%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
2.8 fps ∼28% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (3 - 6.3, n=6)
4.88 fps ∼48% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=197)
10.1 fps ∼100% +106%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
3.2 fps ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
3.1 fps ∼44% -3%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
2.6 fps ∼37% -19%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
4.4 fps ∼63% +38%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (3.2 - 4.8, n=6)
3.47 fps ∼49% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=196)
7.03 fps ∼100% +120%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
7.7 fps ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
8.2 fps ∼55% +6%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
6.4 fps ∼43% -17%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
7.2 fps ∼48% -6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (7.5 - 9.7, n=6)
8.13 fps ∼55% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=201)
14.9 fps ∼100% +94%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
Nokia 7.2
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
8.7 fps ∼52%
Samsung Galaxy A50
Samsung Exynos 9610, Mali-G72 MP3, 4096
9 fps ∼54% +3%
Huawei P30 Lite
HiSilicon Kirin 710, Mali-G51 MP4, 4096
7 fps ∼42% -20%
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
Qualcomm Snapdragon 665, Adreno 610, 6144
8.1 fps ∼49% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 660
  (8.5 - 8.7, n=6)
8.62 fps ∼52% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=201)
16.7 fps ∼100% +92%
Nokia 7.2Samsung Galaxy A50Huawei P30 LiteXiaomi Redmi Note 8Average 64 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
23%
90%
93%
6%
-8%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
63.99 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
60.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-5%
67.85 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
6%
52.83 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-17%
57.4 (11.2 - 74.7, n=104)
-10%
49.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=436)
-23%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
83.3 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
73.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-11%
76.83 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-8%
71.63 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-14%
76.5 (21.1 - 87.2, n=104)
-8%
67.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=436)
-19%
Random Write 4KB
13.38
18.2
36%
87.29
552%
91.23
582%
24.8 (3.4 - 125, n=118)
85%
23.1 (0.14 - 259, n=762)
73%
Random Read 4KB
79.64
98.9
24%
71.57
-10%
84.76
6%
55 (11.4 - 149, n=118)
-31%
48.5 (1.59 - 226, n=762)
-39%
Sequential Write 256KB
161.4
192.1
19%
158.63
-2%
160.53
-1%
171 (40 - 246, n=118)
6%
99.5 (2.99 - 590, n=762)
-38%
Sequential Read 256KB
290.83
507.3
74%
293.23
1%
297.65
2%
273 (95.6 - 704, n=118)
-6%
280 (12.1 - 1781, n=762)
-4%

Temperature

Max. Load
 35.2 °C
95 F
35.4 °C
96 F
37 °C
99 F
 
 33.3 °C
92 F
34 °C
93 F
36.6 °C
98 F
 
 32.5 °C
91 F
33.3 °C
92 F
34.3 °C
94 F
 
Maximum: 37 °C = 99 F
Average: 34.6 °C = 94 F
30.6 °C
87 F
33.5 °C
92 F
35.3 °C
96 F
29.8 °C
86 F
32.6 °C
91 F
34.2 °C
94 F
30.7 °C
87 F
32.2 °C
90 F
34 °C
93 F
Maximum: 35.3 °C = 96 F
Average: 32.5 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  26.1 °C = 79 F | Room Temperature 22 °C = 72 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(±) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 34.6 °C / 94 F, compared to the average of 33.1 °C / 92 F for the devices in the class Smartphone.
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 37 °C / 99 F, compared to the average of 35.5 °C / 96 F, ranging from 22.4 to 51.7 °C for the class Smartphone.
(+) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 35.3 °C / 96 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 28.3 °C / 83 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.


Loudspeakers

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2034.936.22529.130.83125.422.34029.424.75039.431.96327.323.68021.626.41002423.912520.72116019.930.12001835.425016.840.331516.247.640015.950.950013.558.163013.961.780012.966.310001470.3125014.770.2160014.171.8200014.273.8250014.575.1315015.476.1400014.974.7500014.876.963001573.7800015.368.81000015.366.41250015.661.31600015.552.4SPL2785N0.957.1median 15.3median 66.3Delta1.312.842.246.742.143.934.636.737.342.739.84532.736.427.729.327.83125.734.323.340.22344.221.449.221.455.720.161.620.563.421.869.520.472.12074.618.273.918.972.9187419.174.518.276.71871.21968.21872.418.17518.166.418.252.318.148.365.965.66267.731.38518.518.514.623.11.662.7median 19.1median 68.21.811.9hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseNokia 7.2Samsung Galaxy A50
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Nokia 7.2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 33.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 6.1% lower than median
(+) | mids are linear (6.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.8% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (26.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 67% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 24% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 79% of all tested devices were better, 6% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy A50 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 25.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.9% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.4% away from median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (23% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 37% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 50% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 61% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 31% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Battery life

Nokia 7.2
3500 mAh
Samsung Galaxy A50
4000 mAh
Huawei P30 Lite
3340 mAh
Xiaomi Redmi Note 8
4000 mAh
Average of class Smartphone
 
Battery Runtime
WiFi Websurfing 1.3
570
701
23%
515
-10%
824
45%
663 (223 - 2636, n=627)
16%
Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3 (Chrome 78)
9h 30min

Pros

+ bright and high-contrast display
+ memory expandable
+ fully-fledged dual SIM
+ Android One

Cons

- microSD without exFAT support
- PWM
- old SoC

Verdict - Weaknesses in detail

Nokia 7.2 Review. Test device provided by:
Nokia 7.2 Review. Test device provided by:

HMD Global does a lot right with the Nokia 7.2, but the smartphone shows some weaknesses in detail in some areas. There's a full dual SIM option plus an extra space for a microSD card, but the latter doesn't support exFAT. The display is both bright and high-contrast, but uses PWM. The SoC provides a smooth system performance, but is already three years old. Especially in view of the upcoming updates, the use of such an old processor is questionable. 

The camera also performs well in the test, as long as there is enough light. In addition, it exaggerates the optics a little with the resharpening. The battery is only sufficiently dimensioned, but many competitors like the Galaxy A50 or the Wiko View 3 Pro already rely on 4,000 mAh and this is noticeable in everyday life.

The Nokia 7.2 offers pure Android pleasure and regular updates. 

Nevertheless, the Nokia 7.2 is a very successful further development compared to its predecessor, because a lot has happened especially in terms of battery life and the memory has also been spiced up considerably. And for those who value a pure Android experience, there is no way around the Nokia phone in this price range, as it is equipped with Android One. 

Nokia 7.2 - 11/14/2019 v7
Daniel Schmidt

Chassis
88%
Keyboard
66 / 75 → 88%
Pointing Device
91%
Connectivity
47 / 70 → 68%
Weight
90%
Battery
88%
Display
83%
Games Performance
16 / 64 → 25%
Application Performance
58 / 86 → 67%
Temperature
92%
Noise
100%
Audio
69 / 90 → 77%
Camera
61%
Average
73%
79%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

Read all 1 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 7.2 Review - Good smartphone with errors in detail
Daniel Schmidt, 2019-11-15 (Update: 2019-11-15)