x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA

HTC Desire 310 Review

HTC Desire 310

Posted: , by Chris P.



HTC Desire 310 Review
HTC Desire 310 Review
HTC Desire 310 Review
HTC Desire 310 Review

The dual SIM Desire 310 is seemingly intended to help HTC surge into the lower-cost segment, though its price tag of $220 in the US kind of disagrees with that notion and puts it into the mid-range tier. But no matter, the jury is still out on whether the 310 is enough of a phone to warrant what is a rather steep price tag. And that jury is us.

Let's take a look.

In the box:

  • Wall charger
  • In-ear headphones
  • microUSB cable


Uninspired, cookie-cutter design that screams “disposable”.

As soon as one gazes upon the HTC Desire 310, all is told. It has the bearing of an entry-level, low-cost device, and its design and overall looks do not simply reinforce that notion – they're making the statement itself. The 310, which tips the scales at 4.94 oz (140 g), has that cookie-cutter, rounded slab look, with a chubby profile that measures in at 0.44 inches (11.25 mm). It is solidly-made, and has pleasantly rounded corners that our hands readily agree with. The matted polycarbonate back is also welcome, as it repels fingerprints with a decent degree of success.

Both the power button and the volume rocker have taken to the right side of the device, and though they're ergonomically placed, they offer unsatisfying tactile feedback and poor travel.

HTC Desire 310
5.21 x 2.68 x 0.44 inches
132.44 x 68.03 x 11.25 mm
4.94 oz (140 g)

HTC Desire 310

Motorola Moto G
5.11 x 2.59 x 0.46 inches
129.9 x 65.9 x 11.6 mm
5.04 oz (143 g)

Motorola Moto G

Lenovo S660
5.39 x 2.71 x 0.39 inches
137 x 68.8 x 9.95 mm
5.33 oz (151 g)

Lenovo S660

LG L90
5.18 x 2.6 x 0.38 inches
131.5 x 66 x 9.6 mm
4.44 oz (126 g)

LG L90

To see the phones in real size or compare them with other models, visit our Visual Phone Size Comparison page.


One of the very worst displays we've seen, even in this price range.

A 4.5-inch glass with a resolution of 480x854 pixels is what you'll have to make do with as far as the Desire 310 is concerned. The IPS panel manages a pixel density of 218 ppi, which is not impressive, but not terrible for its class either.

What's terrible about the screen is its extremely cold color temperature of almost 19,000K, which results in some very bluish whites and grays. What's more, color reproduction is completely off, with pretty much every primary or secondary color showing sometimes downright critical discrepancies between target and actual colors. This issue is especially noticeable with green, magenta, and cyan.

Last but not least, the Desire 310's display is absolutely unsuited for use outdoors in conditions other than murky, overcast weather. Its peak brightness of just 288 nits is just poor, even in this class.

Display measurements and quality

Maximum brightness (nits)Higher is better Minimum brightness (nits)Lower is better Contrast Higher is better Color temperature (Kelvins) Gamma Delta E rgbcmy Lower is better Delta E grayscale Lower is better
HTC Desire 310 288
Motorola Moto G 429
View all

  • Options

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 05:23 2

1. faizan-sharif (Posts: 98; Member since: 26 Jun 2013)

very stupid phone, their are many phones in the local market, alot more better than this and htc's pricing is $220 dollars is to be questioned by every one, who even love htc devices, when you have moto g 16gb at @199 why you wud go for it?

according to spec diff with moto g it shud be max $120

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 13:37

17. sgodsell (Posts: 4858; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)

They should have at least doubled the on board storage and memory. The dual sim is a nice feature, but I would rather have more memory and storage then dual sim.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 20:14 1

19. GTR722 (Posts: 270; Member since: 20 Oct 2012)

You can even get an Xperia L, a better phono for like 170$ in amazn...HTC went full tard...

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 05:48 5

2. boosook (Posts: 1442; Member since: 19 Nov 2012)

I didn't even read the review... a phone with 512MB of RAM in 2014 cannot cost more than $99/EUR99.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 05:50

3. KillerKeyboard (Posts: 344; Member since: 21 Nov 2013)

Chris P. WINS


posted on 29 Apr 2014, 05:53 1

4. anirudhshirsat97 (Posts: 408; Member since: 24 May 2011)

Considering its main rival, the MotoG is much much, and i really mean much better in everything from value to features to performance. Unless you hate motorola or love htc there is absolutely no reason to choose this over the motoG.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 07:35

9. JC557 (Posts: 1794; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)

I tend to like HTC phones but only their higher end phones and there's no denying that the Motorola Moto G wins out here. If people can find used Moto X's for a similar price then all bets are off and the Desire just gets pulverized.

Motorola has always been good about providing good quality for a reasonable price.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 05:57 1

5. bokimaricu (Posts: 61; Member since: 21 Dec 2013)

Add a 100~ more bucks and buy yourself a One Plus One, avoiding this crap in the process.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 08:07 2

11. ihavenoname (Posts: 1693; Member since: 18 Aug 2013)

And lets not forget Moto G. Isn't it even cheaper than this?

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 17:06

18. bokimaricu (Posts: 61; Member since: 21 Dec 2013)

Moto G too, of course. You can either get a lot more from your bucks or you can get it (even better than it, to be exact) for less money.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 06:38 4

6. Killua (Posts: 270; Member since: 25 Nov 2013)

Wow, $220 for this? And HTC is wondering why their phones aren't selling ...

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 06:54

7. xperian (Posts: 382; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)

Moto G is the only phone that's not terrible at this price (not counting chinese ones)

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 07:39 1

10. JC557 (Posts: 1794; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)

Hopefully Lenovo will maintain and even strengthen the Motorola brand.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 07:13

8. zuliner (Posts: 13; Member since: 08 Nov 2013)


posted on 29 Apr 2014, 08:32

12. bigv6691 (Posts: 10; Member since: 08 Jan 2014)

Way over priced. I'll stick with my moto g and wait for the Desire 816 to come to the US

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 08:39 1

13. livyatan (Posts: 867; Member since: 19 Jun 2013)

This is how HTC plans to turn the tides back and focus on lower market segments?

If so, they have no chance of survival

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 10:26 1

14. rkaahean (Posts: 6; Member since: 23 Mar 2014)

I'm pretty sure this phone is not even ment for the U.S market. In India, where I live, this phone is ever so slight cheaper than the Moto g. It's got fairly good attention.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 10:35

15. StraightEdgeNexus (Posts: 3689; Member since: 14 Feb 2014)

Yeah crispy is right. Htc thinks it can put apple like pricing. Deserves that 4 score. If we look back 3-4 years ago htc was oppo like brand at best.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 11:51

16. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 3117; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)

This has to be one of the crappiest phones ever released in recent years. HTC, stop digging your own grave.

posted on 29 Apr 2014, 20:16

20. fireblade (Posts: 717; Member since: 27 Dec 2013)

HTC never learns

posted on 01 May 2014, 18:42

21. ianneo (Posts: 41; Member since: 15 Dec 2013)

The reason why these devices are made is because in 3rd world countries, the Moto G is pretty expensive. Even here is Australia, the 8gb Moto G is more that $250.

posted on 06 May 2014, 00:55

22. Jinto (Posts: 436; Member since: 15 Jan 2014)

The back image made me think this was HTC's response to the Lumia 630/635

posted on 23 Jul 2014, 17:27

23. buggerrer (Posts: 306; Member since: 21 Sep 2011)

In Australia phone currently sells for $129.00 from Vodafone Website. But there was a special few weeks ago on dse.com.au.

Here is a link to a video for the Vodafone Australia version of the phone


Want to comment? Please login or register.

PhoneArena rating:
Display4.5 inches, 480 x 854 pixels (218 ppi)
Camera5 megapixels
MediaTek, Quad-core, 1300 MHz, ARM Cortex-A7 processor
Size5.21 x 2.68 x 0.44 inches
(132.44 x 68.03 x 11.25 mm)
4.94 oz  (140 g)

Latest stories