Nokia Lumia 925 ReviewNokia Lumia 925 7.8
Ever since the introduction of the first Lumia phone, Nokia has been improving and refining its Windows Phone-powered line-up with each new model. Feature by feature and app by app, we've finally arrived at the Nokia Lumia 925 – an ambitious smartphone that attempts to offer a well-rounded experience to customers, for whom plastic just won't cut it.
Not to be considered a direct successor to last year's Lumia 920, the Lumia 925 is more of refresh that adds a new and largely improved design, a slightly better camera and an AMOLED screen replacing the IPS LCD panel. Read on to learn if all of these changes have been for the better, as well as if the Lumia 925 is the Windows Phone smartphone that can easily replace a high-end Android model or an iPhone.
The Nokia Lumia 925 has a lot to offer in the design department. Most previous Lumia models simply looked good, but weren't necessarily anything extraordinary. Most were heavy and bulky, and all of them were made of high-quality plastic. With the Lumia 925, however, Nokia has decided to aim a bit higher, as it has added a small, exquisite element to the handset's design – the frame surrounding the phone is made of (real) aluminum, giving the phone a more premium look and feel. The back side of the device is still made of polycarbonate, though, and while we can't say that it feels great, it's not bad either.
The metal frame is not the only asset of the Lumia 925's design. The handset is also the thinnest Lumia yet at 8.5 mm. We're happy to report that it's also much lighter than the Lumia 920, which was quite heavy at 6.53 oz (185 g). In comparison the Lumia 925 is about 25% lighter at 4.90 oz (139 g).
129 x 70.6 x 8.5 mm
4.90 oz (139 g)
130.3 x 70.8 x 10.7 mm
6.53 oz (185 g)
123.8 x 58.6 x 7.6 mm
3.95 oz (112 g)
136.6 x 69.8 x 7.9 mm
4.59 oz (130 g)
One of the major differences between the Lumia 925 and Lumia 920 is the fact that the former uses an AMOLED display. This is surely one of the better AMOLED displays we've seen, with a reasonable color balance and temperature, although still far from perfect. Sadly, brightness peaks at about 280 nits (comparable to that of the Galaxy S4), which makes the display a bit hard to view under bright daylight.
Other than that, the characteristics of the screen have remained the same, with a diagonal measuring 4.5 inches and a resolution of 768 x 1280 pixels. While definitely not 1080p, this resolution and screen size combo make for a pixel density of 334 ppi, which is still great. Aside from the smallest text in the web browser, everything else will look perfectly clean.
When it comes to viewing angles, the Lumia 925 isn't the best performer out there. While its image quality is very good when viewed straight on, colors quickly get greenish once you tilt the phone at just about 20 degrees. Most things are still readable, but image quality degradation is obvious.
1. _Bone_ (Posts: 2149; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
3rd generation PureView sensor, just 8 million pixels, crystal clear conditions and Nokia still can't produce sharp images? Look at the bottom of this one, noise, blur, loss of details.
I guess we'll have to wait for the EOS to see real PureView images on a usable OS.
6. tashreef (Posts: 476; Member since: 24 Nov 2012)
Don't refer anything on PA which is about Nokia or its smartphone. They are always biased
66. Potato. (banned) (Posts: 607; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
And yet PA is calling themselves unbiased. Pathetic.
82. skyguy7567 (Posts: 148; Member since: 17 Nov 2012)
Sony is the same thing. There's no help with samsungarena now.
13. raunak (Posts: 507; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
I don't think this is phase 3. They just improved phase 2 a little.
And yes, you'll need to wait for EOS for THAT quality.
46. DontHateOnS60 (Posts: 864; Member since: 20 Apr 2009)
If you look at any photos from every great Nokia camera phone, you'll see that they all do the same thing. The image in the dead center is totally in focus and sharp, but degrades at the very outer edges of it. My N8 has done this since day 1, as did my N95, and I'm pretty sure my 808 does it too. Must be something to do with their lenses because you don't typically see it on Samsung's Galaxy.
83. skyguy7567 (Posts: 148; Member since: 17 Nov 2012)
Dude, everyone knows that samsung galaxy produces bad images. Samsungarena might not agree with this, but this is totally true. Strange shades with quite some blurs on photos, and colors are totally unrealistic. Sony and Nokia's photos are the closest to professional cameras. Last time I borrowed a samsung phone to shoot a scene with twilight lighting? Blur blur blur. And that was a note 2. Xperia and Lumia can do tons better than that.
70. Edmund (Posts: 656; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)
you know something is wrong when they (phone arena) hide exif data.
73. RiseAgainst94 (Posts: 281; Member since: 03 Mar 2012)
The call quality on my Lumia 900 is absolutely garbage after a year...borderline unusable. A real shame Nokia can't get that right, such a beautiful device otherwise.
My bro's Lumia 920 sounds great though, I should add.
86. applesauce (banned) (Posts: 165; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)
My Lumia 900 (original US launch, got it first weekend it was available) still has great call quality, with and without speakerphone. Maybe you've damaged it?
97. RiseAgainst94 (Posts: 281; Member since: 03 Mar 2012)
How are they bias when the do camera shootouts and the recent Nokia's (Minus the 808) do terribly? My brother and I both own Lumia's 920 and 900 respectfully, and the image quality is something to be desired.
The fast that this phone does not have wireless charging, in my opinion, puts it behind the Lumia 920. Bizarre
2. quyenqchau0813 (unregistered)
Even The Verge gave it a 8.1
PhoneArena gave it 7.8
9. raunak (Posts: 507; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
Verge appreciates good design, simplicity and usability. They don't care about specs as long as the phone's working fine. PA appreciates phones that look good on spec sheet, but lag in real life because a certain theif company stuffed thousands of useless gimmics.
This is the reason iPhone 5 and HTC One got higher score on Verge than S3 and S4, and lower on PA.
51. SonyFindOneDroidple (Posts: 746; Member since: 11 May 2013)
Dont you know that the Verge rated Htc One higher than s4 just because of the design.. out of the 10 factors, htc one trumps s4 only in design.. mAny factors are in favor of gs4 some>equal
65. Potato. (banned) (Posts: 607; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
1. In Design
2. In Boomsound (speaker quality)
3. In low-light (IOS)
5. Beats audio
71. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
It's not really unibody, it's just 2 pieces glued together.
74. panda123 (Posts: 27; Member since: 18 Jan 2013)
Did you just write "Design" and "Unibody" as 2 separate points? And also mentioned Beats audio? Which is particularly useless
78. Potato. (banned) (Posts: 607; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
Beats audio is useless? Really?
And what about those gimmick gestures?
98. donfem (Posts: 579; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)
Did you also notice he has boomsound and beats separately?
3. tusshharish (Posts: 342; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)
are you serious about giving it 7.8/10 ?????? i think you gave this score only because of it runs on wp8...
60. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
That is a good reason. Windows phone, at this moment in time, just isn't as good as other iOS and Android.
80. zuckerboy (banned) (Posts: 898; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)
they think wp8 is best OS. oh cmon get real dudes :D
4. rms.max (Posts: 91; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)
7.8 ? how Ray? Really? wasn't fair enough ...it deserves 8-8.5.
38. zuckerboy (banned) (Posts: 898; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)
so we r waiting for july 11th LOL
72. mottykels (Posts: 373; Member since: 15 May 2013)
Ray s always rate a low score except Samsung device :/
96. ZeroCide (Posts: 726; Member since: 09 Jan 2013)
He needs to check his math. maybe he missed a decimal point somewhere.
87. applesauce (banned) (Posts: 165; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)
I agree. He rated the 920 last year even higher, the 925 addresses all the issues he had with it (save the OS).
Also, no mention of the Amber updates?
7. raunak (Posts: 507; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
280 nits? i think there is something wrong with the unit you have. It is supposed to be around 500.
And the phone definitely deserves an 8.
8. Mokujin (Posts: 1; Member since: 18 Jun 2013)
are u kidding me???
Why a poor rating of 7.8 for Lumia 925?
Can you explain how u rated this phone?
22. PhansMuneeb (Posts: 363; Member since: 28 Jan 2012)
It has weak call quality so -1 for that and -0.2 for loudspeakers and the main one -1 for Windows Phone OS.
10. feres13 (Posts: 306; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
I still don't understand why Nokia released this phone when in some ways it's a downgrade from the 920 (Half the storage, no wireless charging, downgrade in design IMO & software features that will come to the 920 anyway) especially when the EOS will be introduced two months after it.
15. tashreef (Posts: 476; Member since: 24 Nov 2012)
Downgrade in design? you must be blind or something.
25. feres13 (Posts: 306; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
It's nice that it is thinner and lighter but it looses the unique design of the N9 that is Nokia's trademark, the back is ugly and i don't like the camera hump.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder
67. Pedro0x (Posts: 271; Member since: 19 Oct 2012)
He is not blind at all, lumia 920 is nicer than this. This new lumias are just more rectangular, which by my standards is uglier. Design is subjective.
I also think that this phone deserves more like 7.5.
- poor call quality(according to PA), it is a freaking phone, it is supposed to be made for calling
- video wasn´t very good
- it runs WP8(might be fine for someone)
- it doesn´t have slot for sd-card while having only 16GB storage, that is very little
- it does have a pretty big bezel, better than lumia 920 but it still.
But this phone does something very well and that is camera(pictures at least).
11. Diego! (Posts: 536; Member since: 15 Jun 2009)
WP 7.8 or WP8?
Oh no! It's the score it got! O_O
I think you were a little bit mean with this review. It shoulf have gotten an 8.5 at least!
16. mobi_user (Posts: 130; Member since: 18 Jun 2013)
Thanks for the review PA. I was really looking for this phone. But now I am giving it up.
At the end of the day, I need a phone to call. Not a phone to click pictures, for that I have my camera. If a expensive phone has such poor call quality, it is nothing better than a paper weight in daily use. The ranking needs to be much lower.
It will be nice, if you guys can provide a more numerical figure to the call quality.
A phone is meant for making calls, that is the first job.
19. PhansMuneeb (Posts: 363; Member since: 28 Jan 2012)
If you want it just go to nearest store and check the demo. I'm sure you will change your decision of not buying it.
23. raunak (Posts: 507; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
Again, I think there's something wrong with the unit PA has. 280 nits? poor call quality?. Refer to Verge's review, they gave it 9 in reception/call quality.
Besides, you should go check the phone itself before buying or atleast read 3-4 websites' reviews and not rely on only one.
26. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
There's nothing wrong with the review unit. I recall phonearena posting some low brightness specs for another phone, but I can't remember what one now. In this review when he says call quality the doesn't mean its reception, he simply means the earpiece speaker is poor in the sense that it lacks a range of frequencies, which is also mentioned in another review I read. They said that when you turn it up loud, it loses its quality.
28. raunak (Posts: 507; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
I don't mean only reception. I said reception/call quality, which includes everything from reception to noise cancelling to earpeice quality and loudspeaker volume.
32. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
You mean everything, but the review means earpiece speaker, are you not understanding my point?
36. raunak (Posts: 507; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
I understand your point. I also understand what the review says. What I mean is that none of the other sites that have reviewed this phone has complained about the call quality or anything related to talking on the phone.
27. muhsen (Posts: 277; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)
there's no nokia phone that has poor call quality... i have the lumia 920 where in the review it says far from perfect while in reality...its magically perfect ...to tell u a truth i came to a conclusion that every nokia is perfect in call quality
Most phonearena call quality tests screw up where the phones being tested show a different scenario in real life...i had an iphone 5 and they complemented the call quality but in reality its worse than the lumia 920
the other problem is that test itself is very questionable and contains lots of variables that can't be contained to give accurate results like angle of holding the phone, the area where the phone is,the operator and lots of others not to mention that phonearena doesn't give any details about conducting the tests and we have to blindly trust their results(and mostly they give contradiciting results)
best test is to try it urself but then again through my life there's no nokia that disappoints in call quality (s40, symbian or windows phone )...no wonder since they r in the business b4 most companies
also giving the lumia 928 8/10 and 925 (which is supposedly better ) 7.8/10 makes the whole review very questionable...u should rely on another site to get a better idea about what to choose like gsmarena !
34. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
Well, phonearena isn't the only reviewer who has stated that the earpiece speaker is poor. Believe what you want, but being loyal to a company will get you nowhere at the end of the day. It will just waste your money because you will buy any of their products, even when they turn out bad. I'm not saying nokia is bad, I know they make plenty of solid hardware, such as the lumia 920, but the 925 just isn't as good as the 920 was. It has come a year later, and has very similar specs. How is it supposed to beat the 9/10 that the lumia 920 got when it was released last year, even though it's barely a step up?
39. raunak (Posts: 507; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
It has not been a year since 920. Also, no one saying it deserves equal score to 920, which got 9, they're just saying 7.8 isa bit too low, even after taking in account the time factor.
91. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
give me the source to other reviews that claim the same. As far as I know, most known and recognizable sites don't have any complains about its sound quality. Stop spreading bull&^*(. Samsung, htc and lg phones suffer the same. Just read recent reviews.
75. Wyn66 (Posts: 7; Member since: 09 Aug 2011)
What's funny is, other reviews are the complete opposite of this. They say the phone is a great design, and has excellent call quality. Maybe PA received a bad unit?
84. skyguy7567 (Posts: 148; Member since: 17 Nov 2012)
No. The problem is SAMSUNGARENA. Samsung phones receive an extraordinary high rating and better review than other sites, which just says it sucks in many ways and the features don't work properly. Of course, the recent GS4 other sites did agree with PA (SA) that the phone has solid specs, but just a laggy UI. PA 'Very smooth UI' seems to do the opposite. For the Xperia Z 'A laggy UI' seems to go completely opposite. Recently went into a store and compared the two phones. Samsung's UI is especially laggy. Note that I was trying out the octa core version. PA GS4 rating is 9.2 or 9.5 (Forgot) And GSMarena? 6.5. PA Xperia Z is 8.5, GSMarena 8.8 (High for GSMarena, phones over 8.5 are considered great) PA Lumia 925 7.4 WTF and GSMarena 8.5. See the difference?
24. mobi_user (Posts: 130; Member since: 18 Jun 2013)
I can go to the nearby store and check it. It is not going to be any different than other Lumia phones. The OS is just the same. But none of them are loaded with a SIM. You get to check the call quality only when you buy it. And it is late by then.
I depend upon this review, because I have Lumia 710 before it had Nokia X6, and PA review on that was spot on.
31. muhsen (Posts: 277; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)
hmmm,windows phone 8 is veryyyyyy different from windows phone 7...wp8 is open like android (bluetooth, usb mass storage ..etc)....wp7 is closed like ios
also most symbian techs from nokia like dobly headphone ,pureview and lots of others came with wp8 to lumia while there was nothing came to wp7 lumia again due to restrictive wp7...so current wp8 lumias r totally different than ur lumia 710
also giving 7.8/10 to lumia 925 (which is better than lumia 928) and giving the lumia 928 8/10 makes the review very questionable...u should rely on another site
95. ILuvWindowsImAlsoSuicidal (Posts: 1; Member since: 24 Jun 2013)
Please explain how windows phone 8 is open!!!!! Like android???? and hopefully you did not mean open source.... Coz if you did then I must have slept through 200 years and ended up in an open MS era!!!!
30. flynfree (Posts: 374; Member since: 09 Jun 2013)
I thought this is upgraded version of lumia 920, not downgraded.
Are they moving backward? Poor nokia!
|Display||4.5 inches, 768 x 1280 pixels (334 ppi) AMOLED|
Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Plus MSM8960, Dual core, 1500 MHz, Krait processor
1024 MB RAM
|Size||5.08 x 2.78 x 0.33 inches|
(129 x 70.6 x 8.5 mm)
4.90 oz (139 g)
|Battery||2000 mAh, 18.3 hours talk time|