Notebookcheck

RugGear RG655 Smartphone Review: A pleasant outdoor handset with a few useful extras, and shortcomings

Inge Schwabe, 👁 Daniel Schmidt, Andrea Grüblinger (translated by Alex Alderson), 07/30/2019

Guardian angel. Push-to-talk and Lone Worker Protection (LWS) are just a few of the functional benefits that RugGear has included on the RG655. The device looks relatively contemporary by outdoor smartphone standards, which makes a change. It is not all roses though, as we will discuss in the review below.

RugGear RG655

RugGear is hardly known in Europe, but the Shenzhen-based company has been releasing devices for around 12 years now, designing its tablet and smartphones in Lauda-Königshofen, Germany.

RugGear has now expanded its offering beyond just rugged smartphones and tablets, with it also targeting prosumers. We have already reviewed the RG650 and RG850, which both straddled the line between rugged and contemporary smartphone, and now we have the RG655 in for review. The RG655 is not just a slightly altered version of the RG650 though, with RugGear opting for a completely different design and SoC among other changes.

The RG655 currently retails for €270 (~$301), effectively meaning that it fills the gap between RG650 and RG850, which launched at €400 (~$446) and €200 (~$223) respectively.  We have also decided to compare the RG655 against the Oukitel WP1, Crosscall Trekker-X4 and Ulefone Armor 6, along with the Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s. All are sold as outdoor smartphones, for reference.

RugGear RG655
Graphics adapter
Memory
3072 MB 
Display
5.5 inch 2:1, 1440 x 720 pixel 293 PPI, Capacitive touchscreen, 5-point multitouch, IPS, glossy: yes
Storage
32 GB eMMC Flash, 32 GB 
, , 25 GB free
Connections
1 USB 2.0, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combined headphone and microphone jack, Card Reader: microSD cards up to 128 GB (FAT, FAT32), NFC, Brightness Sensor, Sensors: Accelerometer, proximity sensor, magnetic sensor
Networking
802.11 a/b/g/n/ac (a/b/g/n = Wi-Fi 4/ac = Wi-Fi 5), Bluetooth 5.0, GSM: 850, 900, 1,800, 1,900 MHz. UMTS: 850, 900, 2,100. LTE: 700, 800, 850, 900, 1,800, 2,100, 2,300, 2,500, 2,600, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 12.5 x 152.5 x 75.4 ( = 0.49 x 6 x 2.97 in)
Battery
15.9 Wh, 4200 mAh Lithium-Ion
Operating System
Android 9.0 Pie
Camera
Primary Camera: 13 MPix AF, LED
Secondary Camera: 8 MPix FF
Additional features
Speakers: Mono speaker on the underside of the device, Keyboard: virtual keyboard, Charger, USB cable, quick start guide, 24 Months Warranty, SAR: 0.59 W/kg. IP68 certified, MIL-STD-810G. Customisable button, Push to Talk (PTT), fanless, ruggedized
Weight
196 g ( = 6.91 oz / 0.43 pounds), Power Supply: 54 g ( = 1.9 oz / 0.12 pounds)
Price
279 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

Case

The RG655 does not look much like an outdoor smartphone, with its polycarbonate design reminding us more of a conventional mid-range Android device. Its shimmering back panel looks the part too with its black carbon fibre finish. The RG655 is also comparatively light at 196 g (~6.9 oz), with most of our comparison devices exceeding 200 g (~7.05 oz).

RugGear claims that the device is IP68 and MIL-STD-810G certified too, the former of which means that it is dust-tight and water-resistant at a depth of at least 1 m (~3 ft). MIL-STD-810G compliance means that the RG655 must have successfully passed fourteen environmental and climatic tests. However, no independent organisation or agency certifies MIL-STD-810 compliance, so the conditions under which RugGear tested the device are unclear.

Most ports are protected by covers, although RugGear has left the micro USB port exposed. The card slot can be pulled out without using a SIM tool or a needle, which is practical as it allows you to change your SIM or microSD card on the move. The device has raised corners for added protection too, or at least the illusion of it.

RugGear has placed the power and volume buttons on the right-hand side of the device, but it has also included a fourth button that is configurable via its in-house CustomKey app.

Size Comparison

166 mm / 6.54 inch 83 mm / 3.27 inch 13.2 mm / 0.52 inch 268 g0.591 lbs162.6 mm / 6.4 inch 82 mm / 3.23 inch 12.85 mm / 0.506 inch 250 g0.551 lbs163 mm / 6.42 inch 79.2 mm / 3.12 inch 11.5 mm / 0.4528 inch 209 g0.4608 lbs158.6 mm / 6.24 inch 75.8 mm / 2.98 inch 15.4 mm / 0.606 inch 256 g0.564 lbs152.5 mm / 6 inch 75.4 mm / 2.97 inch 12.5 mm / 0.4921 inch 196 g0.4321 lbs146.2 mm / 5.76 inch 73.3 mm / 2.89 inch 9.7 mm / 0.3819 inch 172 g0.3792 lbs

Connectivity

As you may have noticed from the picture at the beginning of this review, the RG655 has no fingerprint scanner. It is unfathomable for a $300 smartphone released in 2019 to lack any form of biometric authentication and is a strange omission in our opinion. We like that the display still responds to wet fingers, or if we are wearing gloves, but it does not make up for the lack of a fingerprint scanner.

RugGear has left out some other sensors too, which we shall cover in the Games section of this review. We were surprised to see a micro USB port too, with most OEMs now having moved onto the more powerful and versatile USB Type-C. We like that RugGear has included microSD card expansion and dual-SIM functionality, although it is a shame to see a hybrid second SIM card slot as this forces people to choose between using a second SIM or a microSD card. Moreover, the card reader does not support exFAT, so it cannot read files that are larger than 4 GB.

The RG655 also comes with a MediaTek Helio P22 MT6762 SoC, 3 GB of RAM and 32 GB of storage. The latter two are rather stingy by today’s standards, but we shall cover what effect these have in the Performance section of this review. Likewise, a 5.5-inch 720p display seems antiquated now, but it is not a bad panel as we will discuss later. The device supports Bluetooth 5.0, NFC, and a decent range of LTE bands.

Topside: 3.5 mm jack
Topside: 3.5 mm jack
Right-hand side: Volume buttons, power button
Right-hand side: Volume buttons, power button
Left-hand side: Card slot, customizable button (Custom Key)
Left-hand side: Card slot, customizable button (Custom Key)
Underside: Microphone, micro-USB, speaker
Underside: Microphone, micro-USB, speaker

Software

RugGear has a reputation of realising smartphones with comparatively new software, with the RG850 being one of the first outdoor devices we tested running Android Oreo. The RG655 stays true to this and ships with Android 9.0 Pie. However, our review unit had the March 5 set of security patches installed during our tests in July, which suggests that RugGear may not be forthcoming on updates.

On the positive side, the RG655 comes with hardly any bloatware save for a few in-house apps and the standard suite of Google services. The main RugGear app is CustomKey, which controls the orange user-configurable button. The app allows you to trigger the flashlight, push-to-talk (PTT) functionality, camera and SoS, among others. You can trigger an emergency call via the Lone Worker Protection (LWP) system too, but you must first install an appropriate service on the device before this will work.

Homescreen
Homescreen
App-Übersicht
App-Übersicht
CustomKey
CustomKey

Communication & GPS

The RG655 does not have a MIMO antenna and so only averages just less than 300 Mbit/s in our iperf3 Client Wi-Fi tests with our Linksys EA 8500 reference router. The RugGear is in good company here though, finishing second to the Armor 6 and Trekker-X4 in our comparison tables.

The RG655 supports 11 LTE bands and UMTS bands 1, 5 and 8. Overall, you should have no issues with using the device on intercontinental trips.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Ulefone Armor 6
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P60, 128 GB eMMC Flash
344 (min: 219, max: 350) MBit/s ∼100% +15%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
322 (min: 301, max: 330) MBit/s ∼94% +8%
RugGear RG655
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
299 (min: 186, max: 330) MBit/s ∼87%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Mali-G71 MP2, 7884B, 32 GB eMMC Flash
274 (min: 197, max: 295) MBit/s ∼80% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=459)
230 MBit/s ∼67% -23%
Oukitel WP1
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 64 GB eMMC Flash
94.9 (min: 27, max: 108) MBit/s ∼28% -68%
RugGear RG850
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
45.5 (min: 36, max: 51) MBit/s ∼13% -85%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Ulefone Armor 6
Mali-G72 MP3, Helio P60, 128 GB eMMC Flash
311 (min: 292, max: 329) MBit/s ∼100% +14%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Adreno 512, 660, 64 GB eMMC Flash
275 (min: 268, max: 279) MBit/s ∼88% 0%
RugGear RG655
PowerVR GE8320, Helio P22 MT6762, 32 GB eMMC Flash
274 (min: 254, max: 286) MBit/s ∼88%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Mali-G71 MP2, 7884B, 32 GB eMMC Flash
263 (min: 227, max: 296) MBit/s ∼85% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=459)
219 MBit/s ∼70% -20%
Oukitel WP1
Mali-G71 MP2, Helio P23 MT6763V, 64 GB eMMC Flash
111 (min: 87, max: 129) MBit/s ∼36% -59%
RugGear RG850
Adreno 505, 430, 32 GB eMMC Flash
29.5 (min: 17, max: 46) MBit/s ∼9% -89%
0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350Tooltip
RugGear RG655 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø294 (186-330)
Crosscall Trekker-X4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø321 (301-330)
Oukitel WP1 Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, ARM Mali-G71 MP2; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø93.8 (27-108)
RugGear RG850 Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Qualcomm Adreno 505; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø45.4 (36-51)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Samsung Exynos 7884B, ARM Mali-G71 MP2; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø273 (197-295)
Ulefone Armor 6 Mediatek Helio P60, ARM Mali-G72 MP3; iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø337 (219-350)
RugGear RG655 Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø274 (254-286)
Crosscall Trekker-X4 Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Qualcomm Adreno 512; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø275 (268-279)
Oukitel WP1 Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, ARM Mali-G71 MP2; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø111 (87-129)
RugGear RG850 Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Qualcomm Adreno 505; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø29.6 (17-46)
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s Samsung Exynos 7884B, ARM Mali-G71 MP2; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø263 (227-296)
Ulefone Armor 6 Mediatek Helio P60, ARM Mali-G72 MP3; iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10; iperf 3.1.3: Ø311 (292-329)
GPS test: Inside
GPS test: Inside
GPS test: Outdoors
GPS test: Outdoors

The RG655 uses BeiDou, GLONASS and GPS for location services, which allow it to find a satellite fix with up to 2 metres (~6.6 ft) accuracy outdoors and 6 metres (~20 ft) indoors. These are incredibly precise values by smartphone standards, with our review unit even able to detect us changing rooms. In short, the RG655 has a fantastic GPS module.

We also took the RG655 on a bike ride to test its location accuracy against the Garmin Edge 500, our reference bike computer. The two devices plotted almost the same route, with the RG655 claiming that we had cycled 40 metres (~44 yd) further than the Garmin did. Overall, the RG655 impressed us during this test, although its accuracy did fall just short of our bike computer in some instances, as demonstrated by the “Loop” screenshots below. You should have no issues with using the RG655 for all general navigation tasks though.

GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Overview
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 – Cycling around a lake
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 – Cycling around a lake
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop
GPS test: Garmin Edge 500 - Loop
GPS test: RugGear RG655 - Overview
GPS test: RugGear RG655 - Overview
GPS test: RugGear RG655 – Cycling around a lake
GPS test: RugGear RG655 – Cycling around a lake
GPS test: RugGear RG655 - Loop
GPS test: RugGear RG655 - Loop

Telephone Features and Call Quality

RugGear pre-installs the standard suite of Google telephony apps, which work just as well as they do on other devices that we have tested. Our review unit has decent call quality, but we occasionally noticed some background hiss during our test calls.

Positively, the RG655 supports Wi-Fi calls (VoWiFi) and voice-over-LTE (VoLTE). Your carrier must provision the device before either technology will work though; they will not work out of the box, even if you can enable them in Settings.

Cameras

Taking a photograph using the RugGear RG655 using the slimming selfie filter
Taking a photograph using the RugGear RG655 using the slimming selfie filter

RugGear has equipped the RG655 with two cameras, an 8 MP front-facing sensor and a 13 MP rear-facing one. The former has a fixed focus and is good enough for the occasional selfie. The default camera app includes a beauty mode where you can smooth your skin, enlarge your eyes or slim your face. The app also has a pro mode where you can change the lighting among other adjustments.

The rear-facing camera is almost useless in low light, as scene 4 below shows. By contrast, a strong lilac tint dominates daylight photos, which we have tried our best to capture in the comparison photos below. Overall, colours look washed out compared to photos shot with our comparison devices. Our test shots are not particularly sharp either.

There is a pro mode for the rear-facing camera too, which reveals that software algorithms and post-processing are partly to blame for the lilac tint and washed out colours. Manually adjusting the ISO and white balance resulted in a noticeably better photo, which not only is more colour accurate but also looks more detailed. In short, we would recommend using the pro mode where possible as the difference it makes is dramatic, as the photos below demonstrate.

Main camera: Automatic mode
Main camera: Automatic mode
Main camera: Manual white balance, ISO 400
Main camera: Manual white balance, ISO 400

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 3Scene 4
click to load images
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour
ColorChecker Passport: The lower half of each area of colour displays the reference colour

We also subjected our review unit to further camera tests under controlled lighting conditions. The rear-facing sensor generally washes out colours compared to the ColorChecker Passport reference colours, although it gets magenta almost bang on. Accordingly, the higher the percentage of magenta in a colour, the more accurately the camera can reproduce it.

Our review unit does not do a great job at capturing our test chart either, with black text looking frayed against coloured backgrounds. The chart looks sharp at the centre of the image, but contrast levels drop off drastically towards the outer edges of the chart. Predictably, the chart is almost unrecognisable in our low-light shot.

Our test chart photographed with the rear-facing camera
Our test chart photographed with the rear-facing camera
Our test chart in detail
Our test chart photographed with the rear-facing camera at 1 lux

Accessories & Warranty

The RG655 comes with a charger, a micro USB to USB Type-A cable and a quick-start guide. RugGear does not currently sell any RG655-specific accessories.

The device also comes with a 24-month limited manufacturer’s warranty. Please see our Guarantees, Return Policies & Warranties FAQ for country-specific information.

Input Devices & Operation

The RG655 has a five-point multitouch touchscreen. By contrast, most modern smartphones support ten-point multitouch, making the touchscreen in the RG655 comparatively outdated. RugGear pre-installs Google Gboard as the default keyboard, which worked well during our tests.

We also experienced no issues with the touchscreen or hardware buttons. The RG655 uses capacitive navigation buttons as most modern Android smartphones do.

Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in landscape mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode
Using the default keyboard in portrait mode

Display

Sub-pixel array
Sub-pixel array

RugGear has equipped the RG655 with a 5.5-inch IPS display that gets impressively bright. X-Rite i1Pro 2 recorded an average maximum luminosity of 579 cd/m² and an 88% evenly lit backlight. In short, the RG655 gets between 7% and 39% brighter than our comparison devices.

The automatic brightness control responds quickly to changing lighting conditions too, sometimes dimming the display to below 10% brightness indoors. The panel can only reach a minimum of 21.34 cd/m² though, so 10% brightness is still rather bright.

Our tests demonstrated that the display flickers when set to 15% brightness and below though, which may be an issue to some people. Pulse-width modulation (PWM) can cause health issues, but the display flickers at 31,650 Hz, which should be higher enough not to affect most people and potentially even those who are PWM sensitive.

An 18:9 aspect ratio is not ideal for watching movies or videos, with content shot in 16:9 being flanked by black borders. The device is only Widevine Level 1 certified, meaning that it can only stream DRM protected content from services like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix in standard definition, rather than in HD.

615
cd/m²
566
cd/m²
543
cd/m²
598
cd/m²
593
cd/m²
567
cd/m²
597
cd/m²
575
cd/m²
561
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 615 cd/m² Average: 579.4 cd/m² Minimum: 21.34 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 88 %
Center on Battery: 593 cd/m²
Contrast: 1289:1 (Black: 0.46 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 8.9 | 0.6-29.43 Ø6
ΔE Greyscale 8.5 | 0.64-98 Ø6.2
92.9% sRGB (Calman 2D)
Gamma: 2.89
RugGear RG655
IPS, 1440x720, 5.5
Crosscall Trekker-X4
IPS, 1920x1080, 5.5
Oukitel WP1
IPS, 1440x720, 5.45
RugGear RG850
IPS, 1440x720, 5.99
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
IPS (PLS), 1280x720, 5
Ulefone Armor 6
IPS LCD, 2246x1080, 6.2
Screen
-5%
-5%
-26%
4%
30%
Brightness middle
593
374
-37%
561
-5%
444
-25%
525
-11%
418
-30%
Brightness
579
352
-39%
537
-7%
469
-19%
513
-11%
413
-29%
Brightness Distribution
88
86
-2%
84
-5%
88
0%
90
2%
91
3%
Black Level *
0.46
0.35
24%
0.85
-85%
0.62
-35%
0.52
-13%
0.2
57%
Contrast
1289
1069
-17%
660
-49%
716
-44%
1010
-22%
2090
62%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
8.9
7.46
16%
5.4
39%
9.75
-10%
6
33%
4.5
49%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
19.5
13.27
32%
11.8
39%
22.4
-15%
10.9
44%
6.8
65%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
8.5
9.8
-15%
5.8
32%
13.5
-59%
7.8
8%
3.3
61%
Gamma
2.89 76%
2.152 102%
2.37 93%
2.736 80%
2.53 87%
2.24 98%
CCT
7488 87%
10554 62%
7567 86%
9287 70%
8605 76%
7205 90%

* ... 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 detected 31650 Hz ≤ 15 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 31650 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 15 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 31650 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 9338 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

The RG655 has a 0.46 cd/m² black value according to X-Rite i1Pro 2, which is acceptable for an outdoor smartphone, although APL measures it at 0.58 cd/m². This is lower than all but the Trekker-X4 and Armor 6 of our comparison devices, but only the latter has a higher contrast ratio than the RG655.

Tests with our spectrophotometer and CalMAN analysis software determine that the display has high DeltaE colour deviations, but all our comparison devices do too. We also noticed a slight colour cast during our tests. The two combine to yield a colour temperature of 7,488 K, which generally makes colours look overly cold. Incidentally, this is about 1,000 K above the ideal value of 6,500 K.

CalMAN: Colour Space - sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Space - sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Mixed Colours - sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Mixed Colours - sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Colour Saturation - sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Greyscale - sRGB target colour space
CalMAN: Greyscale - sRGB target colour space

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
27.6 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 11.2 ms rise
↘ 16.4 ms fall
The screen shows relatively slow response rates in our tests and may be too slow for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 58 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (24.8 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
60.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 30 ms rise
↘ 30.4 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. » 95 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (39.4 ms).
Using the RugGear RG655 outside under bright sunlight
Using the RugGear RG655 outside under bright sunlight

The RG655 is easy to use outdoors thanks to its bright IPS panel. The display still picks up reflections, but its high maximum luminosity offsets these well.

We also liked that the display responds to wet fingers and gloves. The device will probably not recognise fingers through thick gloves or winter mittens, although we did not have these on hand during our tests.

The IPS panel has stable viewing angles too. We noticed no brightness, colour or image distortions even at acute viewing angles, so you should have no issues with using the RG655 from practically any angle.


Viewing Angles
Viewing Angles

Performance

RugGear equips the RG655 with a MediaTek Helio P22 MT6762 SoC, which the Taiwanese company introduced in early 2018. The 16 nm chip includes eight ARM Cortex-A53 cores that can clock up to 2 GHz, along with a PowerVR GE8320 GPU that can reach 650 MHz.

RugGear pairs the SoC with 3 GB of RAM, a paltry amount by today’s standards. By contrast, most of our comparison devices have at least 4 GB of RAM, with the Armor 6 coming with 6 GB.

The difference in RAM shows itself in our comparison tables, with the RG655 generally scoring less than our comparison devices that have greater than 3 GB of RAM. Parenthetically, our Galaxy XCover 4s benchmark results were not available at the time of our RG655 tests. The PowerVR GE8320 did not fare that well either in our comparison tables, with it typically falling short of ARM Mali and Qualcomm Adreno powered devices.

Geekbench 4.4
Compute RenderScript Score (sort by value)
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
5322 Points ∼100%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
2782 Points ∼52%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2452 Points ∼46%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3569 Points ∼67%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (2166 - 3015, n=6)
2664 Points ∼50%
Average of class Smartphone
  (663 - 21070, n=328)
4681 Points ∼88%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3300 Points ∼66%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
5021 Points ∼100% +52%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
3594 Points ∼72% +9%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
2605 Points ∼52% -21%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4082 Points ∼81% +24%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (3300 - 3660, n=7)
3468 Points ∼69% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (883 - 11598, n=387)
4727 Points ∼94% +43%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
789 Points ∼50%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1570 Points ∼100% +99%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
829 Points ∼53% +5%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
685 Points ∼44% -13%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1216 Points ∼77% +54%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
Points ∼0% -100%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (749 - 824, n=7)
778 Points ∼50% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (390 - 4824, n=387)
1429 Points ∼91% +81%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4942 Points ∼71%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
6135 Points ∼88% +24%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
4780 Points ∼69% -3%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
3596 Points ∼52% -27%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5309 Points ∼76% +7%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
6950 Points ∼100% +41%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (3805 - 5237, n=9)
4644 Points ∼67% -6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (2630 - 11690, n=398)
5367 Points ∼77% +9%
Work performance score (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6679 Points ∼70%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
6651 Points ∼70% 0%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
6134 Points ∼64% -8%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
4290 Points ∼45% -36%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6316 Points ∼66% -5%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
9513 Points ∼100% +42%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (4404 - 6922, n=9)
5891 Points ∼62% -12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1077 - 15193, n=565)
5831 Points ∼61% -13%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
996 Points ∼37%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2724 Points ∼100% +173%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1674 Points ∼61% +68%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1121 Points ∼41% +13%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1554 Points ∼57% +56%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2675 Points ∼98% +169%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (912 - 1183, n=8)
992 Points ∼36% 0%
Average of class Smartphone
  (573 - 5576, n=405)
1996 Points ∼73% +100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
431 Points ∼24%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1266 Points ∼70% +194%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
380 Points ∼21% -12%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
305 Points ∼17% -29%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
498 Points ∼27% +16%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
881 Points ∼49% +104%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (376 - 449, n=8)
420 Points ∼23% -3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (75 - 8374, n=405)
1811 Points ∼100% +320%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Unlimited (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
493 Points ∼29%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1437 Points ∼85% +191%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
459 Points ∼27% -7%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
364 Points ∼22% -26%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
588 Points ∼35% +19%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1037 Points ∼62% +110%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (435 - 521, n=8)
481 Points ∼29% -2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (93 - 6916, n=406)
1681 Points ∼100% +241%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
993 Points ∼36%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2748 Points ∼99% +177%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1681 Points ∼61% +69%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1148 Points ∼42% +16%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1768 Points ∼64% +78%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2765 Points ∼100% +178%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (900 - 1195, n=9)
987 Points ∼36% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (375 - 5133, n=434)
1905 Points ∼69% +92%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited Graphics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
698 Points ∼29%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2001 Points ∼83% +187%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
598 Points ∼25% -14%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
529 Points ∼22% -24%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
826 Points ∼34% +18%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1441 Points ∼60% +106%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (452 - 740, n=9)
665 Points ∼28% -5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (70 - 20154, n=434)
2414 Points ∼100% +246%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Unlimited (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
747 Points ∼35%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2130 Points ∼100% +185%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
698 Points ∼33% -7%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
601 Points ∼28% -20%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
937 Points ∼44% +25%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1581 Points ∼74% +112%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (513 - 808, n=9)
715 Points ∼34% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (88 - 10427, n=434)
2027 Points ∼95% +171%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
955 Points ∼35%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2731 Points ∼100% +186%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1580 Points ∼58% +65%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1116 Points ∼41% +17%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1747 Points ∼64% +83%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2478 Points ∼91% +159%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (860 - 1130, n=8)
971 Points ∼36% +2%
Average of class Smartphone
  (486 - 4909, n=485)
1902 Points ∼70% +99%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
361 Points ∼24%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1185 Points ∼79% +228%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
369 Points ∼25% +2%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
252 Points ∼17% -30%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
555 Points ∼37% +54%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
628 Points ∼42% +74%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (257 - 392, n=8)
328 Points ∼22% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (53 - 7150, n=485)
1501 Points ∼100% +316%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
419 Points ∼29%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1356 Points ∼94% +224%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
445 Points ∼31% +6%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
304 Points ∼21% -27%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
654 Points ∼45% +56%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
733 Points ∼51% +75%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (305 - 459, n=8)
385 Points ∼27% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (68 - 6319, n=486)
1444 Points ∼100% +245%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
951 Points ∼35%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2751 Points ∼100% +189%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1551 Points ∼56% +63%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1128 Points ∼41% +19%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1756 Points ∼64% +85%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2511 Points ∼91% +164%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (854 - 1139, n=9)
979 Points ∼36% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (293 - 4900, n=526)
1765 Points ∼64% +86%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
577 Points ∼29%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1914 Points ∼97% +232%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
575 Points ∼29% 0%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
522 Points ∼27% -10%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
766 Points ∼39% +33%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
861 Points ∼44% +49%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (370 - 645, n=9)
523 Points ∼27% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (43 - 11302, n=525)
1967 Points ∼100% +241%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
632 Points ∼31%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2053 Points ∼100% +225%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
668 Points ∼33% +6%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
593 Points ∼29% -6%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
876 Points ∼43% +39%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1008 Points ∼49% +59%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (428 - 714, n=9)
582 Points ∼28% -8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (55 - 8338, n=528)
1697 Points ∼83% +169%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
13221 Points ∼60%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
19890 Points ∼90% +50%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
10654 Points ∼48% -19%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9051 Points ∼41% -32%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13610 Points ∼61% +3%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
22137 Points ∼100% +67%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (9674 - 15069, n=9)
11940 Points ∼54% -10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (735 - 45072, n=686)
14321 Points ∼65% +8%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10070 Points ∼35%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
29055 Points ∼100% +189%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
10820 Points ∼37% +7%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9704 Points ∼33% -4%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13711 Points ∼47% +36%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
18998 Points ∼65% +89%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (9536 - 11349, n=9)
10461 Points ∼36% +4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (536 - 209204, n=684)
22437 Points ∼77% +123%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10633 Points ∼40%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
26356 Points ∼100% +148%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
10775 Points ∼41% +1%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
9551 Points ∼36% -10%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13688 Points ∼52% +29%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
19616 Points ∼74% +84%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (9835 - 11921, n=9)
10713 Points ∼41% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (662 - 97276, n=684)
18114 Points ∼69% +70%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
17 fps ∼34%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
50 fps ∼100% +194%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
21 fps ∼42% +24%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
25 fps ∼50% +47%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
34 fps ∼68% +100%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (17 - 20, n=8)
19 fps ∼38% +12%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.5 - 322, n=704)
38.4 fps ∼77% +126%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
24 fps ∼49%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
49 fps ∼100% +104%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
34 fps ∼69% +42%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
41 fps ∼84% +71%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
32 fps ∼65% +33%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (24 - 27, n=8)
26 fps ∼53% +8%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 120, n=713)
28.3 fps ∼58% +18%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
9.1 fps ∼41%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
22 fps ∼99% +142%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
10 fps ∼45% +10%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
13 fps ∼59% +43%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
18 fps ∼81% +98%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (9.1 - 10, n=8)
9.64 fps ∼43% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.8 - 175, n=609)
22.2 fps ∼100% +144%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
15 fps ∼56%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
23 fps ∼85% +53%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
20 fps ∼74% +33%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
27 fps ∼100% +80%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
17 fps ∼63% +13%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (15 - 17, n=8)
16.5 fps ∼61% +10%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 115, n=618)
19.6 fps ∼73% +31%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
5.9 fps ∼33%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
15 fps ∼83% +154%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
6.6 fps ∼36% +12%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
8.1 fps ∼45% +37%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
12 fps ∼66% +103%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (4.6 - 6.2, n=8)
5.85 fps ∼32% -1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.87 - 117, n=474)
18.1 fps ∼100% +207%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
10 fps ∼53%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
15 fps ∼79% +50%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
14 fps ∼74% +40%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
19 fps ∼100% +90%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
11 fps ∼58% +10%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (10 - 11, n=8)
10.6 fps ∼56% +6%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.2 - 110, n=476)
16.9 fps ∼89% +69%
GFXBench
Aztec Ruins High Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.2 fps ∼42%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
3.7 fps ∼37% -12%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
6.4 fps ∼63% +52%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2.6 fps ∼26% -38%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (4.1 - 4.3, n=8)
4.25 fps ∼42% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.61 - 60, n=197)
10.1 fps ∼100% +140%
2560x1440 Aztec Ruins High Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1.3 fps ∼18%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1.4 fps ∼20% +8%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1.8 fps ∼26% +38%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4.3 fps ∼61% +231%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (1.3 - 1.6, n=8)
1.388 fps ∼20% +7%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.21 - 33, n=196)
7.03 fps ∼100% +441%
Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Onscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
6.7 fps ∼45%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
6.4 fps ∼43% -4%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
10 fps ∼67% +49%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
6.9 fps ∼46% +3%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (6.7 - 6.8, n=8)
6.78 fps ∼46% +1%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.4 - 60, n=201)
14.9 fps ∼100% +122%
1920x1080 Aztec Ruins Normal Tier Offscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
3.6 fps ∼22%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
3.8 fps ∼23% +6%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
5 fps ∼30% +39%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7.6 fps ∼46% +111%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (3.5 - 4.7, n=8)
3.78 fps ∼23% +5%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 87, n=201)
16.7 fps ∼100% +364%
off screen Car Chase Offscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
2.8 fps ∼23%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
9 fps ∼73% +221%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
3.8 fps ∼31% +36%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
4.3 fps ∼35% +54%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7 fps ∼57% +150%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (2.1 - 2.9, n=8)
2.68 fps ∼22% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (0.6 - 73, n=399)
12.3 fps ∼100% +339%
on screen Car Chase Onscreen (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
4.9 fps ∼41%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
9.4 fps ∼78% +92%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
7.5 fps ∼63% +53%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
fps ∼0% -100%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
12 fps ∼100% +145%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
7 fps ∼58% +43%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (3.8 - 5.1, n=8)
4.44 fps ∼37% -9%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1.1 - 60, n=403)
11 fps ∼92% +124%
AnTuTu v7 - Total Score (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
74180 Points ∼52%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
140917 Points ∼99% +90%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
84267 Points ∼59% +14%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
59936 Points ∼42% -19%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
102121 Points ∼71% +38%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
131861 Points ∼92% +78%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (71347 - 88242, n=9)
76135 Points ∼53% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (17073 - 462516, n=296)
143005 Points ∼100% +93%
BaseMark OS II
Web (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
733 Points ∼65%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
1095 Points ∼97% +49%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
756 Points ∼67% +3%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
684 Points ∼61% -7%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
977 Points ∼87% +33%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1128 Points ∼100% +54%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (10 - 835, n=8)
578 Points ∼51% -21%
Average of class Smartphone
  (7 - 1745, n=642)
764 Points ∼68% +4%
Graphics (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
744 Points ∼33%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2247 Points ∼100% +202%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
859 Points ∼38% +15%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
740 Points ∼33% -1%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1113 Points ∼50% +50%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
1486 Points ∼66% +100%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (744 - 799, n=8)
769 Points ∼34% +3%
Average of class Smartphone
  (18 - 16996, n=642)
2105 Points ∼94% +183%
Memory (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1065 Points ∼38%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2799 Points ∼100% +163%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1246 Points ∼45% +17%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
706 Points ∼25% -34%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1985 Points ∼71% +86%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2276 Points ∼81% +114%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (661 - 1247, n=8)
928 Points ∼33% -13%
Average of class Smartphone
  (21 - 7500, n=642)
1552 Points ∼55% +46%
System (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
2434 Points ∼48%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
5048 Points ∼100% +107%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
2662 Points ∼53% +9%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
1746 Points ∼35% -28%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
3507 Points ∼69% +44%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
4736 Points ∼94% +95%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (2165 - 2619, n=8)
2343 Points ∼46% -4%
Average of class Smartphone
  (369 - 14189, n=642)
3030 Points ∼60% +24%
Overall (sort by value)
RugGear RG655
Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762, PowerVR GE8320, 3072
1090 Points ∼45%
Crosscall Trekker-X4
Qualcomm Snapdragon 660, Adreno 512, 4096
2428 Points ∼100% +123%
Oukitel WP1
Mediatek Helio P23 MT6763V, Mali-G71 MP2, 4096
1214 Points ∼50% +11%
RugGear RG850
Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 (MSM8937), Adreno 505, 3072
889 Points ∼37% -18%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Samsung Exynos 7884B, Mali-G71 MP2, 3072
1658 Points ∼68% +52%
Ulefone Armor 6
Mediatek Helio P60, Mali-G72 MP3, 6144
2062 Points ∼85% +89%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
  (323 - 1166, n=8)
896 Points ∼37% -18%
Average of class Smartphone
  (1 - 6097, n=642)
1521 Points ∼63% +40%

The RG655 performs comparatively poorly in browser benchmarks too. It consistently took longer to load websites and media content on our test device than it did on our comparison devices.

WebXPRT 3 - ---
RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73)
72 Points ∼100% +140%
Average of class Smartphone (19 - 184, n=172)
67.2 Points ∼93% +124%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
48 Points ∼67% +60%
RugGear RG655 (Chrome 75)
30 Points ∼42%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (26 - 30, n=7)
28.6 Points ∼40% -5%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
10573 Points ∼100% +219%
Ulefone Armor 6 (Chrome 71)
8287 Points ∼78% +150%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
7065 Points ∼67% +113%
Average of class Smartphone (894 - 49388, n=700)
6885 Points ∼65% +108%
Oukitel WP1 (Chrome 70)
4274 Points ∼40% +29%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (3312 - 4508, n=9)
4166 Points ∼39% +26%
RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73)
3386 Points ∼32% +2%
RugGear RG655
3312 Points ∼31%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73)
13599.1 ms * ∼100% -10%
RugGear RG655
12363.9 ms * ∼91%
Oukitel WP1 (Chrome 70)
11939.4 ms * ∼88% +3%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (10846 - 12799, n=9)
11753 ms * ∼86% +5%
Average of class Smartphone (571 - 59466, n=725)
10463 ms * ∼77% +15%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
5826.7 ms * ∼43% +53%
Ulefone Armor 6 (Chrome 71)
4416.2 ms * ∼32% +64%
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
3954.2 ms * ∼29% +68%
JetStream 1.1 - Total Score
Crosscall Trekker-X4 (Chrome 71)
55.524 Points ∼100% +140%
Ulefone Armor 6 (Chrome 71)
45.017 (min: 8) Points ∼81% +94%
Average of class Smartphone (10 - 302, n=539)
42.3 Points ∼76% +83%
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s (Chrome 75)
37.945 Points ∼68% +64%
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762 (22.7 - 24.6, n=5)
23.3 Points ∼42% +1%
RugGear RG655 (Chrome 75)
23.159 Points ∼42%
Oukitel WP1 (Chrome 70)
22.984 Points ∼41% -1%
RugGear RG850 (Chrome 73)
18.351 Points ∼33% -21%

* ... smaller is better

RugGear equips the RG655 with 32 GB of flash storage, of which around 25 GB was free when we first booted our review unit. The device supports up to 128 GB microSD cards, although it cannot read exFAT and you must forgo using a second SIM.

In short, the RG655 has woefully slow internal storage. Our review unit finished well behind our comparison devices in AndroBench, although its microSD card reader performed comparatively better. The device averaged about 18% above average transfer speeds when tested with our Toshiba Exceria Pro M501 reference card, which puts it on par with our comparison devices too.

RugGear RG655Crosscall Trekker-X4Oukitel WP1RugGear RG850Samsung Galaxy XCover 4sUlefone Armor 6Average 32 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
74%
86%
30%
43%
92%
25%
44%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
61.65 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
59.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
72.82 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
18%
63.7 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
3%
64.25 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
4%
60.13 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-2%
50.6 (3.4 - 87.1, n=145)
-18%
49.5 (1.7 - 87.1, n=436)
-20%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
82.39 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
83.5 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
1%
81.21 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-1%
83.9 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
2%
79.55 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
-3%
75.59 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-8%
69.4 (8.2 - 96.5, n=145)
-16%
67.7 (8.1 - 96.5, n=436)
-18%
Random Write 4KB
11.68
14.3
22%
20.83
78%
12.64
8%
10.38
-11%
19.87
70%
18.2 (0.75 - 77.3, n=188)
56%
23.1 (0.14 - 259, n=762)
98%
Random Read 4KB
15.99
71.5
347%
64.23
302%
39
144%
59.56
272%
81.33
409%
39.3 (3.59 - 117, n=188)
146%
48.5 (1.59 - 226, n=762)
203%
Sequential Write 256KB
121.31
194.7
60%
241.34
99%
120.74
0%
85.4
-30%
188.45
55%
94.5 (14.8 - 189, n=188)
-22%
99.5 (2.99 - 590, n=762)
-18%
Sequential Read 256KB
233.33
272.4
17%
284.98
22%
280.06
20%
298.6
28%
290.76
25%
236 (25.8 - 452, n=188)
1%
280 (12.1 - 1781, n=762)
20%

Games

The PowerVR GE8320 does not have to power many pixels with the RG655 having a 720p display, which has its plusses and negatives. On the one hand, it allows the GPU to run games at higher framerates than it could do if the device had a 1080p panel, but some modern mobile RPGs look pixelated to our eyes.

The GPU supports the Vulkan API, technically making it futureproofed. However, the RG655 is not powerful enough for complex titles such as "PUBG Mobile", which would not even install on our review unit. Likewise, "Harry Potter: Wizards Unite" reported the RG655 as being incompatible as it lacks a gyroscope, a sensor that the game needs to run.

The blocks in "Tetris" look rather small on the RG655’s 5.5-inch display too, but this is a minor gripe. The resistive finish to the display helped when playing games such as "Tetris", but it may make your fingers tired during prolonged gaming sessions.

Tetris
Tetris
Sonic the Hedgehog Classic
Sonic the Hedgehog Classic

Emissions

Temperature

The RG655 runs comparatively coolly, with surface temperatures never exceeding 30 °C (~86 °F) even under sustained load. The device should feel cool to the touch in general use.

Max. Load
 29.7 °C
85 F
29 °C
84 F
29.1 °C
84 F
 
 30.4 °C
87 F
30.2 °C
86 F
30.1 °C
86 F
 
 30 °C
86 F
29.7 °C
85 F
28.3 °C
83 F
 
Maximum: 30.4 °C = 87 F
Average: 29.6 °C = 85 F
26.6 °C
80 F
27.6 °C
82 F
29.4 °C
85 F
26.6 °C
80 F
27.6 °C
82 F
30.8 °C
87 F
25.2 °C
77 F
27.4 °C
81 F
29.9 °C
86 F
Maximum: 30.8 °C = 87 F
Average: 27.9 °C = 82 F
Power Supply (max.)  34 °C = 93 F | Room Temperature 20 °C = 68 F | Voltcraft IR-260
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 29.6 °C / 85 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 30.4 °C / 87 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 30.8 °C / 87 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 23.5 °C / 74 F, compared to the device average of 33.1 °C / 92 F.
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the front of the device under load
Heatmap of the back of the device under load
Heatmap of the back of the device under load

Speakers

Pink Noise speaker test
Pink Noise speaker test

Connecting wired headphones is more cumbersome than on most smartphones, with RugGear including a protective cover to prevent the ingress of dust or liquids. We found the cover difficult to pry off though, which may quickly become a pain in daily use if you regularly use wired headphones.

The RG655 also has a mono speaker on the underside of the device, and while it gets reasonably loud, music sounds rather tinny to our ears. In short, we would recommend using external audio equipment such as headphones and speakers if you value audio quality.

Our tests confirm this, with speaker’s greatest weaknesses being its inability to reproduce low-end frequencies. The lack of bass and low-mid tones overemphasises high-pitched frequencies, with the RG655 having a worse sounding speaker overall than the ones in the Galaxy XCover 4s and WP1.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.739.72537.124.43128.131.54027.628.65037.534.66322.927.98023.831.310021.329.912519.121.516018.422.520017.916.525017.72331517.933.940014.640.250015.948.663015.253.180016.261.610001466.712501571.2160014.769.9200014.469.8250014.672.4315014.272.3400014.775.1500014.679.2630014.982.7800015.176.11000015.168.91250014.860.81600015.151.2SPL27.287N0.960.1median 15.1median 61.6Delta1.417.332.835.924.33018.628.824.329.333.83921.230.624.83418.537.416.434.917.140.517.942.616.848.714.954.315.159.614.26313.966.814.870.414.275.814.781.114.483.414.383.61483.813.883.914.884.314.479.31565.714.764.214.863.514.855.314.745.126.792.90.883.4median 14.8median 64.20.615.336.734.137.130.228.128.527.626.937.536.122.931.723.828.521.325.519.128.118.444.917.941.817.746.917.953.314.658.515.960.915.265.416.269.11471.21570.814.771.114.471.214.67314.277.414.777.614.674.514.975.415.17715.172.214.86115.152.527.285.90.963.4median 15.1median 69.11.410.2hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseRugGear RG655Oukitel WP1Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
RugGear RG655 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (87 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 37% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 9.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (10.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 13.7% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (8.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (37.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 97% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 97% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 2% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Oukitel WP1 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (92.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 21.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 10.2% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 11% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.5% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 70% of all tested devices in this class were better, 8% similar, 21% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 81% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 14% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 29% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 3.8% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.2% higher than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 29% of all tested devices in this class were better, 11% similar, 60% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 55% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 37% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Power Management

Power Consumption

The RG655 has comparatively low power consumption. Only the RG850 had a lower power draw in our tests than the RG655 of our comparison devices, although the latter is especially frugal under load, averaging just 2.58 W.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.01 / 0.14 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 0.81 / 1.85 / 1.87 Watt
Load midlight 2.58 / 4.23 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
RugGear RG655
4200 mAh
Crosscall Trekker-X4
4400 mAh
Oukitel WP1
5000 mAh
RugGear RG850
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
2800 mAh
Ulefone Armor 6
5000 mAh
Average Mediatek Helio P22 MT6762
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-18%
-14%
-34%
5%
-28%
-2%
-22%
Idle Minimum *
0.81
0.7
14%
0.77
5%
1.2
-48%
0.65
20%
0.9
-11%
0.711 (0.57 - 1, n=9)
12%
0.882 (0.2 - 3.4, n=789)
-9%
Idle Average *
1.85
1.4
24%
1.98
-7%
1.7
8%
1.62
12%
2.04
-10%
1.589 (1 - 2.4, n=9)
14%
1.739 (0.6 - 6.2, n=788)
6%
Idle Maximum *
1.87
2.2
-18%
1.99
-6%
2.6
-39%
1.66
11%
2.09
-12%
1.982 (1.51 - 2.9, n=9)
-6%
2.03 (0.74 - 6.6, n=789)
-9%
Load Average *
2.58
4.1
-59%
3.89
-51%
3.8
-47%
3.03
-17%
3.4
-32%
3.05 (2.18 - 4, n=9)
-18%
4.07 (0.8 - 10.8, n=783)
-58%
Load Maximum *
4.23
6.4
-51%
4.78
-13%
6
-42%
4.34
-3%
7.31
-73%
4.65 (3.43 - 5.9, n=9)
-10%
5.93 (1.2 - 14.2, n=783)
-40%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

Low power consumption tends to yield good battery life, which is the case here. The 4,200 mAh battery in the RG655 lasted 15:45 hours in our Wi-Fi battery life test, putting our review unit second to the WP1 in our comparison table. The latter only achieved a 26-minute longer runtime than the RG655 though, despite having an 800 mAh larger battery. Hence, the RG655 makes better use of its battery than all our comparison devices.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
15h 45min
Big Buck Bunny H.264 1080p
16h 59min
RugGear RG655
4200 mAh
Crosscall Trekker-X4
4400 mAh
Oukitel WP1
5000 mAh
RugGear RG850
4000 mAh
Samsung Galaxy XCover 4s
2800 mAh
Ulefone Armor 6
5000 mAh
Battery Runtime
-11%
3%
-9%
-38%
-8%
Reader / Idle
1199
H.264
1019
598
-41%
WiFi v1.3
945
839
-11%
971
3%
857
-9%
619
-34%
874
-8%
Load
200

Pros

+ durable
+ bright display
+ customisable button
+ good battery life
+ excellent GPS module
+ display responds to gloved hands and wet fingers
+ LWP-suited

Cons

- no fingerprint scanner
- weak cameras
- no exFAT support
- hybrid second SIM card and microSD card slot

Verdict

The RugGear RG655 smartphone review. Test device courtesy of RugGear Germany.
The RugGear RG655 smartphone review. Test device courtesy of RugGear Germany.

The RugGear RG655 is a robust outdoor smartphone, but it is not a device on which we would recommend consuming media content, whether that be photos, music, videos or games. The RG655 has good battery life, at least.

However, its cameras and speakers are lacking, as is its GPU. The RG655 will make a good companion on building sites or when camping, for example, as is sturdy, has an accurate GPS module and a bright display.

The RugGear RG655 is an affordable outdoor smartphone that looks nicer than most of its contemporaries with the features to match. It falls short in many areas though, which prevents it from becoming our go-to outdoor smartphone.

We also like that we can use the display with wet hands or with gloves on, as this only adds to the versatility of the RG655. Likewise, the inclusion of a configurable button is handy, as is the degree of protection against the elements. Overall, if you are looking for a compact outdoor smartphone, then the RugGear RG655 may be the device for you.

RugGear RG655 - 10/16/2019 v7
Inge Schwabe

Chassis
85%
Keyboard
70 / 75 → 93%
Pointing Device
90%
Connectivity
46 / 70 → 65%
Weight
88%
Battery
91%
Display
80%
Games Performance
6 / 64 → 9%
Application Performance
41 / 86 → 48%
Temperature
95%
Noise
100%
Audio
44 / 90 → 49%
Camera
45%
Average
68%
74%
Smartphone - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > RugGear RG655 Smartphone Review: A pleasant outdoor handset with a few useful extras, and shortcomings
Inge Schwabe, 2019-07-30 (Update: 2019-07-31)
Alex Alderson
Alex Alderson - News Editor - @aldersonaj
Prior to writing and translating for Notebookcheck, I worked for various companies including Apple and Neowin. I have a BA in International History and Politics from the University of Leeds, which I have since converted to a Law Degree. Happy to chat on Twitter or Notebookchat.