Wiko Fever

Specifications

Pricecompare

Reviews for the Wiko Fever

80% Wiko Fever 4G
Source: Android Mag DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Short, Date: 05/31/2016
Rating: Total score: 80%

65% Lustloser Akku, leuchtend verpackt
Source: Inside Handy DE→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Long, Date: 03/23/2016
Rating: Total score: 65%

Smartphone Wiko Fever - Recensione Caratteristiche Prezzo
Source: Smartphone e tablet android IT→EN Archive.org version
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 03/30/2017
Rating: performance: 70% display: 70% mobility: 70% workmanship: 70%

Recensione: Wiko Fever
Source: InstaNews IT→EN Archive.org version
Positive: Compact size; decent hardware; good cameras; long battery life; good price. Negative: Mediocre design.
Single Review, online available, Medium, Date: 09/02/2016

Comment

ARM Mali-T720 MP4: Integrated graphics card with four clusters clocked at up to 600 MHz. The chip supports OpenGL ES 3.1 and is typically produced in 28nm.

These graphics cards are not suited for Windows 3D games. Office and Internet surfing however is possible.

» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Graphics Cards and the corresponding Benchmark List.

MT6753: » Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.

5.20":

It is a very small display format for smartphones. You should by no means be mis-sighted and you will generally see very little on the screen and only have a small resolution available. In return, the device should be very small and handy.

Wiko:

Wiko SAS was founded as a French smartphone manufacturer in 2011. Since 2014, the Chinese technology group Tinno Mobile has owned a majority of Wiko. They produce in China. The company has already reached a considerable market share in the French market in early years and expanded to Europe and Africa later on. Nevertheless, the world market share is low.

Reviews are only available since 2014, that is since the first international expansion. Recently, the number of reviews has increased. The ratings are average (as of 2016).

72.5%: This rating is poor. More than three quarters of the models are rated better. That is rather not a purchase recommendation. Even if verbal ratings in this area do not sound that bad ("sufficient" or "satisfactory"), they are usually euphemisms that disguise a classification as a below-average laptop.

» Further information can be found in our Notebook Purchase Guide.

Similar devices with the Same Specs

Similar devices from a different Manufacturer