Originally Posted by
Elitis --Actually, I've heard the SD400 is comparable to the SD S4. The fact that it has a 1.2GHz CPU, which is lower than that of the S4, doesn't tell the whole story when it comes to performance, as so many, incorrectly, assume.
--The resolution, isn't that much lower. I, sincerely, doubt you could tell the difference. Granted, I wouldn't be surprised to find the 920's display better still.
--I don't believe the 920 had true OIS, as we're now seeing on the iPhone, and some Android Flagships, either. MP don't mean much. Wouldn't doubt the 920's camera being better.
--May have 1/4 on-board storage, but just through microSD support, it could have more overall storage space than the 920. Other than that, I don't see why you're comparing them in this area. It really doesn't matter, or mean much.
--I'll never understand the fascination with wireless charging, and this coming from a guy who gets excited over installing a new IDE.
All in all, even though the 920 is a bit old at this point, it's still strange to compare a (previous/ex) flagship device with a budget smartphone.
--There were actual benchmark comparisons of the Lumia 830, which carries the same SoC as the 640. There was a small CPU boost with the 400, but the GPU performance on the 400 was WAY behind that of the S4. The RAM and web benches were minimally varied, but the only stat that showed any significant difference between the two was the GPU bench, where the S4 was above the 400. I'm not an *****. I know that clock speeds don't tell the full story. I was speaking to actual testing with both chips.
--It's not meaningful, I agree. I'm simply stating that people called the 640 better, and this is another example of where it isn't (the main point I'm making here is that people called the 640 better when the hardware comparisons show otherwise).
--What's "true OIS?" It might not have been the BEST OIS, but that doesn't mean it's fake. I think the main reason the 920 could have better images is that it's been fairly common for Lumias to launch with image quality problems fixed through firmware, whether it be contract, white balance, or low-light qualities in pictures. The 920 was the same way.
--I'm comparing because it's a point of contention. My 920 had enough storage I needed and then some the day I bought it. I'd have to go dump another $25 (maybe more or less, haven't kept up on microSD prices of late) on a microSD card to make the 640 even a usable device (8 GB is terrible; I have something like 12.5 GB of music alone).
--Pointing it out isn't fascination. It's a fact of technology. I find the SensorCore stuff to be pointless, but it's still something in the favor of the 640 XL. The wireless charging's a minor quality-of-life benefit (not fumbling for a cable in the dark is a minor plus).
Like I said, my point was that the 640 XL really doesn't offer superior hardware to the 920. They were released at different price points and for different markets, but I wasn't speaking to that. I was speaking to the claims that the 640 is a superior device, so I offered points to dispute that claim.
