Nokia 3.1 review: Hands on with the Nokia 3’s larger sibling

UPDATE: Nokia has announced a successor to the Nokia 3: the Nokia 3.1. The new model has hit shelves for £149 for the 16GB and 2GB RAM model and will cost a little more for the 32GB and 3GB RAM combo, which is planned to come out later this year.

What’s new? The biggest change is to the screen, which has moved from the old-style 16:9 aspect ratio to a shiny new 18:9 shape. It’s topped with Gorilla Glass and is slightly larger at 5.2in – up from 5in – but the resolution is is still a relatively low 720 x 1,280.

Click here to see our gallery of Nokia 3.1 pictures

The processor also receives a healthy speed bump. There’s now a 1.5GHz Mediatek 6750 octa-core processor inside, which ought to deliver a significant performance boost. The original Nokia 3 had a quad-core Mediatek 6737.

The rear camera gets an upgrade, too, with resolution up from 8-megapixels to 13-megapixels. Perhaps the most interesting new feature, though, is that the phone now runs Android One, which guarantees monthly security updates and OS upgrades for two years.

The Nokia 3.1 will be available in blue and copper, black and chrome, and white and “iron”, and we’ll be running a full review when we get our hands on a review sample.

READ NEXT: Our hands-on with the all-new Nokia 5.1 and Nokia 2.1

Continue reading for Nathan’s review of the original Nokia 3

Nokia 3 review: What you need to know

The Nokia 3 is the firm’s first proper smartphone in three years, with Nokia ditching Windows in favour of Android. And it’s a stock Android OS experience at that: there’s no gaudy overlay here.

Aimed at those less able to justify spending top dollar on a smartphone, its specifications are hardly industry-leading. There’s a 5in, 720p IPS display, 16GB of internal storage, a quad-core processor paired with 2GB of RAM, 8-megapixel front and rear cameras and support for expandable storage up to an additional 128GB via microSD.

READ NEXT: Honor 7A review (hands on): Could Honor’s £140 phone steal the Moto G’s crown?

Nokia 3 review: Price and competition

The Nokia 3 is cheap, though, at £130 and undercuts much of the competition from other big brands. The Moto G5 now costs just £119; Samsung’s Galaxy J5 is £169. There’s also our current favourite to contend with: Lenovo’s long-lasting P2 at a pricier £180 or so. Its closest competition probably comes from the 2016 Moto G4, which you can pick up for £140 these days.

Best Nokia 3 contract and SIM-free deals

Nokia 3 review: Design

Despite the three-year absence, the 3 is very much a Nokia design. In fact, the Nokia 3 adopts a similar look and feel to the Lumia phones of old, with metal edging surrounding a matte-finish polycarbonate rear panel and a handsome screen upfront. Nokia’s logo is subtly etched into its back, beneath the solitary rear camera at the top.

READ NEXT: Best budget smartphone 2018

It’s also nice and pocketable, weighing a dinky 140g and a slim 7.5mm. Throw in a 3.5mm headphone jack and microSD slot, and you have a handset that’s both attractive and practical. Don’t expect USB Type-C and fast-charging, mind, nor any kind of dust- or water-resistance.

READ NEXT: Motorola Moto G6 Play review: Another winner from Motorola

Nokia 3 review: Display

The Nokia 3’s 5in display is a little uninspiring at first pass. It’s only 720p, a far cry from the Full HD offerings on the Moto G5 and G4 before it. You’ll only see the difference if you look close, though, and in the areas that matter it’s a fine display. A contrast ratio of 1,119:1 ensures the onscreen image is punchy, and it’s readable in bright sunlight, too, thanks to a maximum brightness of 473cd/m2, a polarising layer to cut glare and the fact that the glass is fully laminated to the LCD beneath.

Its colour performance is what drags it down. Spend five minutes with it and you’ll spot some off-looking colours, with reds in particular looking awfully muddy. An average Delta E measurement of 4.04 (I’d prefer a score of between one and two) affirms this, and the end result is a screen with strange-looking colours across the board.

Nokia 3 review: Performance and battery life

As for the core components, they’re not particularly impressive, either, with a quad-core 1.4GHz MediaTek MT6737 processor paired with just 2GB of RAM. Performance in our benchmarks wasn’t very impressive at all.

As you can see, the Nokia 3 doesn’t stack up particularly well. In fact, it’s slower than all of them, including the Moto G4 from 2016. Navigating apps and menus wasn’t particularly taxing, but panning and zooming around Google Maps was sluggish at times.

Likewise, gaming performance isn’t up to snuff. While simple games such as Threes posed no problem, more action-heavy titles will provide a stiff challenge. In the GFXBench Manhattan 3 test, the Nokia 3 returned an average frame rate of 5fps – about the same as the Samsung Galaxy J5 and behind the 2016 Moto G4.

Battery life isn’t too bad, but as is the case with general speed, the Nokia 3 still trails behind. Lasting 10hrs 40mins in our continuous video-playback test, it will survive a day on a single use provided you’re a little conservative, but again it’s worth spending a touch more to get better longevity.

Nokia 3 review: Camera

Budget smartphones typically fall flat when it comes to the camera, and the Nokia 3 is no exception.

We’re treated – for want of a better term – to an 8-megapixel, f/2.0 camera on the back, with very little going for it. There’s no laser or phase-detection autofocus for instance, no image stabilisation, and video can only be shot at 720p. Yep, that’s 720p.

Performance is as you might expect. Low-light shots lack vibrance, look bland and lack detail, with some very washed-out images. Shots in good light didn’t fare much better either, with overexposed highlights a theme, and a general lack of detail.

It’s typical budget smartphone fare, but as Motorola has proved over the past few years, you shouldn’t have to put up with that.

Nokia 3 review: Verdict

Nokia’s first stab at a budget Android smartphone is decent enough, but it doesn’t bring anything noteworthy to the table. It’s a looker, sure, and its display is pretty good, but elsewhere it’s disappointing. Performance is below par, battery life isn’t great and the camera isn’t up to scratch either.

The trouble is at £130, there isn’t much direct competition, aside from the 2016 Motorola Moto G4, which you can still buy for £140. But, as long as you don’t mind buying a generation-old phone, the Moto is the better choice. It has a bigger, higher-resolution screen, faster performance, a better camera and superior battery life.