T-Mobile Nokia Motorola Windows Android Microsoft

Nokia Lumia 530 vs Nokia Lumia 525 vs Moto E: entry-level specs showdown

posted by Peter K. / Jul 23, 2014, 5:14 AM

Nokia Lumia 530 vs Nokia Lumia 525 vs Moto E: entry-level specs showdown

Microsoft just expanded its entry-level portfolio of Windows Phone devices with the Nokia Lumia 530, a successor to the Nokia Lumia 525. The latter, as you probably know, is a slightly refined version of the Nokia Lumia 520, Redmond's best-selling smartphone of all time. Thus, don't expect the new Lumia 530 to woo you with anything in the hardware department – after all, it's a low-end device that is targeted at emerging markets.

Microsoft's latest affordable device is equipped with a quad-core Snapdragon 200 SoC, 512MB of RAM, 4GB of native storage, and a 1430mAh juicer at the rear, which is touted as being able to keep the Lumia 530 kicking and ticking up to 22 days in standby mode. Oh, and it comes with the latest version of Redmond's OS, Windows Phone 8.1. The affordable device will retail at $114 before taxes and subsidies.

Well, okay, but how does the device fare against its predecessor? Does it deliver or is it just a minor improvement, similar to the Android-powered Nokia X2? Frankly said, we suppose that some may solely view Windows Phone 8.1 as a sound enough reason to upgrade to the Lumia 530, but that might not be the case for everybody. Let's check out the spec sheets and see if the Lumia 530 is a trooper, at least on paper. Note that we've also thrown in another affordable champ, the Motorola Moto E, for a good measure.

So, can you distinguish a clear winner or you're on the fence?

Nokia Lumia 530 vs Nokia Lumia 525 vs Motorola Moto E

Display

Display size

4.0 inches

4.3 inches

Resolution

480 x 854 pixels

480 x 800 pixels

540 x 960 pixels

Pixel density

245 ppi

235 ppi

256 ppi

Technology

LCD

IPS LCD

Screen-to-body ratio

59.22 %

58.46 %

63.10 %

Colors

16 777 216

Camera

Rear

Yes

Main camera

5 megapixels

Hardware Features

Autofocus

Specifications

Aperture size: F2.4; Focal length: 28 mm; Sensor size: 1/4"

Aperture size: F2.4; Focal length: 28 mm

Software Features

Face detection, Voice activation, Geo tagging, ISO control, White balance presets, Panorama, Night mode, Scenes

Digital zoom, Geo tagging, Exposure compensation, ISO control, White balance presets, Panorama

Geo tagging, HDR, Panorama

Video recording

Resolution, 864 x 480 pixels 30 fps

1280x720 (HD) (30 fps)

Resolution, 854 x 480 pixels 30 fps

Recording format

MPEG4, H.264

MPEG4, H.263, H.264

Features

Video sharing

Picture-taking during video recording, Video sharing

Design

Dimensions

4.71 x 2.45 x 0.46 inches (119.7 x 62.3 x 11.7 mm)

4.72 x 2.52 x 0.39 inches (119.9 x 64 x 9.9 mm)

4.91 x 2.55 x 0.48 inches (124.8 x 64.8 x 12.3 mm)

Weight

4.55 oz (129 g)

4.37 oz (124 g)

5.01 oz (142 g)

Resistance

Splash

Features

Interchangeable covers

Hardware & Performance

System chip

Qualcomm Snapdragon 200

Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Plus MSM8227

Qualcomm Snapdragon 200 8210

Processor

Quad-core, 1200 MHz, ARM Cortex-A7

Dual-core, 1000 MHz, Krait

Dual-core, 1200 MHz, ARM Cortex-A7

GPU

Adreno 302

Adreno 305

Adreno 302

RAM

0.5 GB LPDDR2

1 GB

1 GB LPDDR2

Internal storage

4 GB

8 GB

4 GB

Storage expansion

Slot Type

microSD, microSDHC, microSDXC

microSD, microSDHC

OS

Windows Phone, 8.1

Windows Phone, 8

Android (4.4.4, 4.4.3, 4.4.2)

Battery

Capacity

1430 mAh

1980 mAh

Talk time

13.40 hours

16.90 hours

Stand-by time

22.0 days (528 hours)

14.0 days (336 hours)

Talk time (3G)

10.00 hours

10.60 hours

Music playback

51.00 hours

48.00 hours

Video playback

5.50 hours

5.90 hours

Cellular

UMTS

900, 2100 MHz

850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz

GSM

850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz

CDMA

800, 1900 MHz

Data

HSDPA+ (4G) 21.1 Mbit/s, HSUPA 5.76 Mbit/s

HSDPA+ (4G) 21.1 Mbit/s, HSUPA 5.76 Mbit/s, UMTS

Multimedia

Screen mirroring

Wireless screen share

Shopping information

MSRP price

$ 129

Related phones

View Full specs

PhoneArena Rating:

7.8

Read Full Review

User Rating:

8.0

Based on 2 Reviews

Display 4.0" 480 x 800 pixels

Camera 5 MP

Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Plus, Dual-core, 1000 MHz

Storage 8 GB + microSDXC

Battery 1430 mAh(10.6h 3G talk time)

View Full specs

PhoneArena Rating:

9.0

Read Full Review

User Rating:

9.3

Based on 6 Reviews

Display 4.3" 540 x 960 pixels

Camera 5 MP

Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 200, Dual-core, 1200 MHz

Storage 4 GB + microSDHC

Battery 1980 mAh

FEATURED VIDEO

Options

21 Comments

1. NokiaFTW

Posts: 2072; Member since: Oct 24, 2012

In terms of just pure bang for the buck, the Lumia 530 wins easily. But the Moto E is a great alternative as well. Personally, all the phones are great. And the stuff they offer for their respective prices is just awesome!

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 5:29 AM 2

3. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

Hardly. The Moto E has double the RAM, a bigger higher resolution display, and a bigger battery for only $15 more. 512 MB of RAM, even on a device in this price range, is unacceptable. I guess it has a better CPU, but we're still not sure if it uses the Snapdragon 200 with Cortex A5 cores + Adreno 203 or Cortex A7 + Adreno 302. This doesn't win anything easily in this range.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 5:52 AM 9

5. nokia12

Posts: 610; Member since: Nov 19, 2013

it is not cortex A5 as they have been discontinued long time back... they were manufactured on 45nm technology ... the only reason nokia was able to launch it in this year was because Nokia X was made around june 2013 and its launch was delayed ..due to acquistion and internal fights qualcomm had stopped manufacturing that chip when they shifted to 28nm so it is 10000000 % cortex A7 .. a 512 mb ram means this phone is instantly dead in front of moto E .and lumia 520/525 are anyday much superior to Lumia 530.. NokiaFTW is just a blindfanboy and will support anything related to MS when he himself can't see why would anyone buy lumia 530 when a much better phone like Lumia 520 is already available at cheaper price

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 6:42 AM 4

7. Berzerk000

Posts: 4275; Member since: Jun 26, 2011

They obviously weren't discontinued, they make up part of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 200 series, which they announced last year, and they started using 28nm in 2012. I know Samsung and HTC made some devices using it last year. It could definitely be Cortex A5.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 7:12 AM 0

9. nokia12

Posts: 610; Member since: Nov 19, 2013

yes they surely did started making 28nm in 2012 but that was in high and mid end and i am also saying that cortex A5 was discontinued in early last year only .. there hasn't been any phone launch with that chip after October/november except nokia X which i mentioned in previous post.. Snapdragon 200 was announced last year sure and cortex A5 was a part of it as well but it has been discontinued just like you can't get snapdragon 600 anymore in new devices same way you can't get those old chips as newer and better chips are available at same price..

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 7:57 AM 0

12. sgodsell

Posts: 6737; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

Has no one taken into consideration the ecosystem. Androids is vast compared to WP. That alone would sway me over Android. The other thing is for even a few more bucks people could get a moto g, which is superior to these. In fact some places you can pick up a moto g for $99 off contract.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 10:04 AM 0

6. LetsBeHonest

Posts: 1548; Member since: Jun 04, 2013

The thing is that, this does not offer anything that make existing lumia 520 users to upgrade to this. The design (my personal opinion) is kind of downgrade from 520. Those sharp edged square lumia 520/525 is much better looking than this. And 4GB internal storage is also a downgrade form 8GB but that's not a big problem since wp8.1 support apps to be moved to sd card. And 512MB ram is also a downgrade, i was expecting an increase in ram but disappointed. True 512MB ram is will run WP okay but is not enough for gaming and multitasking. Most game requires 1gb ram minimum also it takes forever developers to optimize their apps for 512mb ram devices (just look at subway surfer). I hope successor to 720 is worthy.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 6:53 AM 0

14. DogeShibe

Posts: 1121; Member since: Jan 10, 2014

^This I seriously hope that L720's successor is a true upgrade.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 11:10 AM 0

11. icyrock1

Posts: 307; Member since: Mar 25, 2013

The 525 is a better deal, honestly. More RAM (1GB Vs 512MB), more built in storage (8GB Vs 4 GB), and better graphics (305 Vs 302 Adrino). Plus, it'll be cheaper now that the 530 is out.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 9:24 AM 1

22. clodderes

Posts: 27; Member since: Feb 11, 2014

I agreed

posted on Jul 24, 2014, 3:23 AM 0

16. 0xFFFF

Posts: 3806; Member since: Apr 16, 2014

"In terms of just pure bang for the buck, the Lumia 530 wins easily. But the Moto E is a great alternative as well. Personally, all the phones are great. And the stuff they offer for their respective prices is just awesome!" This statement is total garbage. All 512MB WP phone models, including the Lumia 530, are already obsolete. They can't even run Microsoft's latest lockscreen app. Which leaves the Lumia 525 and the Moto E is clearly a better value for the money vs the overpriced Lumia 525. People new to Microsoft don't yet understand that the master of screwing the customer is now in charge of the former Nokia mobile device division. Things don't get better from here on. Rather the road ahead is the road to hell.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 12:54 PM 0

2. Trolloftheyear

Posts: 66; Member since: Jul 16, 2014

Why the hell they downgraded RAM and storage?

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 5:30 AM 1

19. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Because unlike android with their half backed install to sd card status, this is not a 4gb+maybe 32gb device. This is a 4gb+128gb device. RAM, Ram only really matters when the OS cannot handle it, which droid 512 has shown to lag, not so with windows phone. And when you have a quad vs dual core, the ram is not the issue. In fact ram is rarely the issue. What I don't like is the fixed focus, but if they price this phone at 50-70, there is nothing that competes, unless things are on sale, like the L90 or Light which are normally 200 phones being sold on a sale. And even at that, the 521 holds its own. I don't like that the low ends don't have front facing, but these are entry devices, so it is what it is.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 10:16 PM 0

4. kindlefireowner

Posts: 504; Member since: Dec 05, 2011

Microsoft has skipped giving CDMA prepaid customers any love again. Why? If the Nokia 1320 was on Verizon Prepaid, I would buy one.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 6:06 AM 1

8. diehardnokian

Posts: 147; Member since: Apr 27, 2014

no flash:(

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 7:45 AM 0

10. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

All of them suck! Why throw a hundred dollar away? For this price I would get me a RedMi 1S.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 9:19 AM 0

13. Daytonadave17

Posts: 54; Member since: Oct 26, 2013

Either way nobody can hang with Nokias low end phone prices for the specs in my opinion!

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 10:57 AM 0

15. Planterz

Posts: 2120; Member since: Apr 30, 2012

Of these 3, gotta go with the Moto E. But if you're on T-Mobile, you should hit eBay at get a Galaxy Light. Quad core 1.4GHz, 1GB RAM, 8gb ROM, microSD slot. AND LTE!!!!! $135 brand new.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 12:28 PM 0

17. Cyberchum

Posts: 1011; Member since: Oct 24, 2012

WP8.1 is slick agreed but provided that the meagre RAM storage on the 530 and 630 will limit app compatibility, there's no way I'm getting it over the 525. Nokia and now Microsoft should stop shooting themselves on the leg. Add extra 512 MB of RAM and charge extra 15 USD.

posted on Jul 23, 2014, 5:41 PM 0

20. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

less than 1% of apps in the store are affected by the ram. In fact it is less than .5% percent of apps in the store. http://www.wpcentral.com/have-windows-phone-512mb-ram-report-shows-you-can-enjoy-99-apps-and-games "Of the 331 incompatible apps reported above, 199 of them come from just two developers: Maan and AppDesigner.com. Both are utilising app templates to create similar apps, the former being city guides and the latter video-based tutorial apps. If both developers were to be excluded from the data, we'd be looking at just 0.088 percent of apps being incompatible with hardware sporting 512MB of RAM. Good job, developers."