Search


Compare phones

Samsung Chrono

SCH-R260, SCH-R261, SCH-R261A
Global Score
33.336.1
Basic Information
PhilipsSamsung
--0000-00-00
4.13 x 1.85 x 0.54 inches3.70 x 1.83 x 0.67 inches
2.92 ounces3.14 ounces
--Scratch-Resistant Glass
$ 125.00$ 80.00
Display / Screen
--2 inches
240 x 320 pixels (QVGA)240 x 320 pixels (QVGA)
TFTTFT
182 pixels per inch200 pixels per inch
ResistiveNo touch screen
6.16.3
processor processor
GPUARM Mali-400 MP1 (320 MHz) GPU
5.765.94
Storage
11,26 MB internal memory--
microSD external memory slotNo SD card slot
0.20
Camera
1.30 MP0.30 MP
4.513.63
GPRS and GSMCDMA
SIM--
0.20.1
Battery Life
980mAh Li-Ion Battery800mAh Li-Ion Battery
Removable BatteryRemovable Battery
655 hours standby time
5 hours talk time
526 hours standby time
5 hours talk time
2.562.24
Other Features
Bluetooth 1.2Bluetooth 2.1, EDR
--GPS

Comparison review

The Samsung Chrono is slightly better than the Philips 392, having a score of 36.1 against 33.3. Samsung Chrono's body is just a bit heavier and thicker than Philips 392. The Samsung Chrono features a bit more vivid screen than Philips 392, and although they both have the same exact 320 x 240px resolution, the Samsung Chrono also has a little bit better pixels amount in each inch of display.

Samsung Chrono counts with a bit better processing unit than Philips 392, and although they both have a 0-Core processing unit, the Samsung Chrono also has an extra graphics processing unit. Philips 392 takes way better videos and photos than Samsung Chrono, because it has a back-facing camera with lot more mega-pixels.

The Philips 392 features a very superior storage for apps and games than Samsung Chrono. The Philips 392 has superior battery life than Samsung Chrono, because it has 980mAh of battery capacity.

In addition to being the best phone between the ones we are comparing here, Samsung Chrono is also very cheap compared to the other ones.




Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.