Wiko View XL
Specifications
Secondary Camera: 13 MPix
Price comparison
Average of 1 scores (from 3 reviews)
Reviews for the Wiko View XL
Source: Chinahandys.net
DE→EN Archive.org versionSingle Review, online available, Long, Date: 02/08/2018
Rating: Total score: 75% performance: 60% display: 80% mobility: 70% workmanship: 80%
Source: Phonandroid
FR→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Elegant design; good price; nice display.
Comparison, online available, Short, Date: 09/04/2017
Source: AndroidPit.fr
FR→EN Archive.org versionPositive: Attractive design; compact size; solid workmanship.
Comparison, online available, Medium, Date: 09/01/2017
Comment
Qualcomm Adreno 308: Integrated mid-range graphics card in the Snapdragon 425 SoCs that supports OpenGL ES 3.0 and features unified shaders.
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.
425: Entry-level SoC that was announced in February 2016. It integrates 4 ARM Cortex-A53 CPU cores clocked at up to 1.4 GHz, an LPDDR3 memory controller and wireless radios for WiFi and 4G/LTE.» Further information can be found in our Comparison of Mobile Processsors.
5.99":
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.
» To find out how fine a display is, see our DPI List.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).
75%: 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.
