Compare phones
|
|
| Global Score | |
| 24.2 | 26 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Nokia |
| 2006-04-03 | 2005-06-03 |
| 3.43 x 1.91 x 0.93 inches | 4.09 x 1.77 x 0.67 inches |
| 3.50 ounces | 3.00 ounces |
| $ 200.00 | $ 100.00 |
| 128 x 160 pixels | 96 x 68 pixels |
| STN | -- |
| -- | 65 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 3 | 4.6 |
| processor | processor |
| GPU | GPU |
| 5.76 | 5.76 |
| No SD card slot | No SD card slot |
| CDMA | GSM |
| -- | SIM |
| 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Battery Life | |
| Li-Ion Battery | 900mAh Li-Ion Battery |
| Removable Battery | Removable Battery |
| 168 hours standby time 3.4 hours talk time | 450 hours standby time 5.5 hours talk time |
| 1.36 | 2.4 |
| GPS | -- |
Comparison review
The Nokia 1600 has a score of 26, which is a little bit better than the Motorola C290's 24.2 general score. Nokia 1600's body is lighter and way thinner than Motorola C290, although it was released around 10 months before. Nokia 1600 features an incredibly better display than Motorola C290, although it has a way worse resolution of 68 x 96.
The Nokia 1600 and Motorola C290 count with similar CPUs, they have a 0-Core processing unit. Nokia 1600's memory capacity for games and applications is just as good as the Motorola C290 one. Nokia 1600 has a very superior battery performance than Motorola C290. Nokia 1600 counts with a camera that is just as good as the camera in Motorola C290.
Despite of being the best phone of the ones in this comparison, Nokia 1600 is also a bargain compared to others.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.