Notebookcheck

Courte critique du smartphone Nokia 2

Thomas Meyer (traduit par JBP), 05/03/2018

Smartphone Nokia low-cost. HMD Global a lancé le Nokia 2, smartphone Android à 119 € équipé d’une énorme batterie. Découvrez dans nos tests ce que le Nokia 2 vaut vraiment.

Nokia 2 (2 Gamme)
Carte graphique
Qualcomm Adreno 304, Processeur: 400 MHz
Mémoire
1024 Mo 
Écran
5 pouces 16:9, 1280 x 720 pixel 294 PPP, IPS, verre résistant aux rayures, brillant: oui
Disque dur
8 GB eMMC Flash, 8 Go 
, 3.5 Go libres
Connexions
1 USB 2.0, Connectique audio: jack 3,5 mm, Lecteur de cartes mémoires: micro SD, micro SDHC, micro SDXC (jusqu'à 128 Go), Brightness Sensor, Capteurs: accéléromètre, gyroscope, capteur de proximité
Réseau
802.11 b/g/n (b/g/n), Bluetooth 4.1, GSM:850 / 900 / 1 800 / 1 900 MHz, UMTS : 800 / 850 / 900 / 1 900 / 2 100 MHz, LTE:800 / 1 800 / 2 100 / 2 600 MHz, Dual SIM, LTE, GPS
Taille
Hauteur x Largeur x Profondeur (en mm): 9.3 x 143.5 x 71.3
Batterie
4100 mAh Lithium-Ion
Système d'exploitation
Android 7.1 Nougat
Appareil photo
Appareil photo primaire: 8 MPix Autofocus, High Dynamic Range, flash LED
Appareil photo secondaire: 5 MPix fixed focus
Fonctionnalités additionnelles
Haut-parleurs: stéréo, câble USB B, chargeur, écouteurs, 24 Mois Garantie, IP52, DAS : 0,29 W/kg, fanless
Poids
161 g, Alimentation: 49 g
Prix
119 euros

 

Le bouton de démarrage et de volume sont mal situés.
Le bouton de démarrage et de volume sont mal situés.
Le châssis du Nokia 2 est sobre mais robuste.
Retirer le couvercle de la batterie fait apparaître les emplacements double nano-SIM et micro SD.

Size Comparison

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (5.9 - 939, n=270)
196 MBit/s ∼100% +254%
Nokia 2
Adreno 304, 212 APQ8009, 8 GB eMMC Flash
55.4 MBit/s ∼28%
LG K4 2017
Adreno 304, 210 MSM8909, 8 GB eMMC Flash
54.9 MBit/s ∼28% -1%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
Mali-T720 MP2, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
46.9 MBit/s ∼24% -15%
Lenovo Moto E4
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
43.1 MBit/s ∼22% -22%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Average of class Smartphone
  (9.4 - 703, n=270)
191 MBit/s ∼100% +252%
Nokia 2
Adreno 304, 212 APQ8009, 8 GB eMMC Flash
54.2 MBit/s ∼28%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
Mali-T720 MP2, 7570 Quad, 16 GB eMMC Flash
53.5 MBit/s ∼28% -1%
LG K4 2017
Adreno 304, 210 MSM8909, 8 GB eMMC Flash
48.9 MBit/s ∼26% -10%
Lenovo Moto E4
Mali-T720 MP2, MT6737, 16 GB eMMC Flash
46.1 MBit/s ∼24% -15%
Test GPS - Nokia 2
Test GPS - Nokia 2
Test GPS - Nokia 2
Test GPS - Nokia 2
Test GPS - Nokia 2
Test GPS - Nokia 2
Test GPS - Garmin Edge 500
Test GPS - Garmin Edge 500
Test GPS - Garmin Edge 500
Test GPS - Garmin Edge 500
Test GPS - Garmin Edge 500
Test GPS - Garmin Edge 500

Comparaison des images

Choisir une scène pour naviguer dans la première image. Un clic permet de changer le niveau de zoom, un autre clic permet de revenir à l'image originale dans une nouvelle fenêtre. La première image montre l'original pris par l'appareil testé.

Scene 1Scene 2Scene 3
Cliquer pour charger les images
483
cd/m²
522
cd/m²
518
cd/m²
487
cd/m²
527
cd/m²
513
cd/m²
478
cd/m²
503
cd/m²
495
cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 527 cd/m² Moyenne: 502.9 cd/m² Minimum: 3.6 cd/m²
Homogénéité de la luminosité: 91 %
Valeur mesurée au centre, sur batterie: 527 cd/m²
Contraste: 775:1 (Valeurs des noirs: 0.68 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 5.3 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.3
ΔE Greyscale 5.8 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
Gamma: 2.12
Nokia 2
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Lenovo Moto E4
IPS, 1280x720, 5
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
PLS, 1280x720, 5
LG K4 2017
854x480, 5
Screen
19%
26%
-5%
Brightness middle
527
488
-7%
502
-5%
385
-27%
Brightness
503
474
-6%
494
-2%
372
-26%
Brightness Distribution
91
87
-4%
89
-2%
92
1%
Black Level *
0.68
0.3
56%
0.35
49%
0.35
49%
Contrast
775
1627
110%
1434
85%
1100
42%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
5.3
5.4
-2%
4.6
13%
6.2
-17%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
9.2
9
2%
8
13%
12.6
-37%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
5.8
5.5
5%
2.5
57%
7
-21%
Gamma
2.12 104%
2.27 97%
2.29 96%
2.08 106%
CCT
7894 82%
7397 88%
6351 102%
8257 79%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion)

Afin d'abaisser la luminosité de l'écran, certains ordinateurs portables font varier très rapidement le rétroéclairage entre éteint et allumé. La fréquence à laquelle le rétroéclairage s'éteint et se rallume est normalement fixée à une valeur qui permet de rendre la variation indétectable à l'œil nu? Si la fréquence est trop basse, certaines personnes peuvent être sujettes à une fatigue oculaire, des maux de tête ou même percevoir les variations.
Scintillement / MLI (Modulation de largeur d'impulsion) non décelé

En comparaison, 53 % des appareils testés n'emploient pas MDI pour assombrir leur écran. Nous avons relevé une moyenne à 8811 (minimum : 43 - maximum : 142900) Hz dans le cas où une MDI était active.

Temps de réponse de l'écran

Le temps de réponse d'un écran mesure la rapidité à laquelle l'écran est capable de changer une couleur pour une autre. Un temps de réponse élevé se traduit par une image floutée pour les objets en mouvement. Les joueurs bénéficieront de faibles latences d'affichage en jeu.
       Temps de réponse noir à blanc
25.2 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 7.6 ms hausse
↘ 17.6 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences relativement élevées, insuffisant pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.8 (minimum) et 240 (maximum) ms. » 43 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont similaires à la moyenne (25.7 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
       Temps de réponse gris 50% à gris 80%
47.2 ms ... hausse ↗ et chute ↘ combinées↗ 18 ms hausse
↘ 29.2 ms chute
L'écran souffre de latences très élevées, à éviter pour le jeu.
En comparaison, tous les appareils testés affichent entre 0.9 (minimum) et 636 (maximum) ms. » 77 % des appareils testés affichent de meilleures performances.
Cela signifie que les latences relevées sont moins bonnes que la moyenne (41.1 ms) de tous les appareils testés.
AnTuTu v6 - Total Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
24924 Points ∼35%
Lenovo Moto E4
30856 Points ∼43% +24%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
35669 Points ∼49% +43%
LG K4 2017
19230 Points ∼27% -23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (22422 - 31844, n=3)
26397 Points ∼37% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (23275 - 232931, n=359)
72132 Points ∼100% +189%
PCMark for Android
Work 2.0 performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
2304 Points ∼52%
Lenovo Moto E4
2674 Points ∼60% +16%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
3436 Points ∼78% +49%
LG K4 2017
2152 Points ∼49% -7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009
2304 Points ∼52% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (2630 - 8601, n=226)
4431 Points ∼100% +92%
Work performance score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
3109 Points ∼66%
Lenovo Moto E4
3518 Points ∼74% +13%
LG K4 2017
3741 Points ∼79% +20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (2720 - 3109, n=2)
2915 Points ∼62% -6%
Average of class Smartphone (4147 - 10571, n=389)
4739 Points ∼100% +52%
BaseMark OS II
Web (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
9 Points ∼1%
Lenovo Moto E4
617 Points ∼91% +6756%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
662 Points ∼98% +7256%
LG K4 2017
9 Points ∼1% 0%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (9 - 546, n=3)
361 Points ∼53% +3911%
Average of class Smartphone (7 - 1731, n=466)
678 Points ∼100% +7433%
Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
251 Points ∼15%
Lenovo Moto E4
208 Points ∼13% -17%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
252 Points ∼16% 0%
LG K4 2017
144 Points ∼9% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (207 - 274, n=3)
244 Points ∼15% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (18 - 15875, n=466)
1622 Points ∼100% +546%
Memory (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
233 Points ∼20%
Lenovo Moto E4
576 Points ∼50% +147%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
1055 Points ∼91% +353%
LG K4 2017
257 Points ∼22% +10%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (229 - 575, n=3)
346 Points ∼30% +48%
Average of class Smartphone (21 - 4798, n=466)
1157 Points ∼100% +397%
System (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
901 Points ∼38%
Lenovo Moto E4
1077 Points ∼46% +20%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
1395 Points ∼59% +55%
LG K4 2017
586 Points ∼25% -35%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (552 - 901, n=3)
749 Points ∼32% -17%
Average of class Smartphone (369 - 12202, n=466)
2351 Points ∼100% +161%
Overall (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
149 Points ∼13%
Lenovo Moto E4
531 Points ∼45% +256%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
704 Points ∼60% +372%
LG K4 2017
119 Points ∼10% -20%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (149 - 435, n=3)
329 Points ∼28% +121%
Average of class Smartphone (150 - 6097, n=470)
1178 Points ∼100% +691%
Geekbench 4.1/4.2
Compute RenderScript Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Lenovo Moto E4
938 Points ∼23%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
1135 Points ∼28%
Average of class Smartphone (836 - 14417, n=164)
4116 Points ∼100%
64 Bit Multi-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
1118 Points ∼27%
Lenovo Moto E4
1532 Points ∼37% +37%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
1858 Points ∼45% +66%
LG K4 2017
944 Points ∼23% -16%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009
1118 Points ∼27% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (1099 - 11598, n=214)
4120 Points ∼100% +269%
64 Bit Single-Core Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
423 Points ∼35%
Lenovo Moto E4
530 Points ∼44% +25%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
634 Points ∼52% +50%
LG K4 2017
390 Points ∼32% -8%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009
423 Points ∼35% 0%
Average of class Smartphone (394 - 4824, n=215)
1215 Points ∼100% +187%
3DMark
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Lenovo Moto E4
783 Points ∼50%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
923 Points ∼59%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (549 - 3669, n=319)
1572 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Lenovo Moto E4
85 Points ∼8%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
63 Points ∼6%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (69 - 5220, n=319)
1103 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot Extreme (ES 3.1) (Classer selon les valeurs)
Lenovo Moto E4
106 Points ∼10%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
79 Points ∼7%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009
0 Points ∼0%
Average of class Smartphone (86 - 4734, n=327)
1054 Points ∼100%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
539 Points ∼37%
Lenovo Moto E4
774 Points ∼53% +44%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
925 Points ∼63% +72%
LG K4 2017
293 Points ∼20% -46%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (539 - 539, n=2)
270 Points ∼18% -50%
Average of class Smartphone (532 - 3642, n=350)
1471 Points ∼100% +173%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 Graphics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
120 Points ∼8%
Lenovo Moto E4
126 Points ∼8% +5%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
92 Points ∼6% -23%
LG K4 2017
0 Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (120 - 120, n=2)
60 Points ∼4% -50%
Average of class Smartphone (104 - 8312, n=350)
1499 Points ∼100% +1149%
2560x1440 Sling Shot OpenGL ES 3.0 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
120 Points ∼9%
Lenovo Moto E4
155 Points ∼12% +29%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
115 Points ∼9% -4%
LG K4 2017
0 Points ∼0% -100%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (120 - 120, n=2)
60 Points ∼5% -50%
Average of class Smartphone (127 - 6378, n=358)
1279 Points ∼100% +966%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Physics (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
7150 Points ∼58%
Lenovo Moto E4
8266 Points ∼67% +16%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
11426 Points ∼92% +60%
LG K4 2017
4143 Points ∼33% -42%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (6786 - 7150, n=2)
6968 Points ∼56% -3%
Average of class Smartphone (7103 - 36762, n=505)
12408 Points ∼100% +74%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Graphics Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
4150 Points ∼25%
Lenovo Moto E4
3168 Points ∼19% -24%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
3725 Points ∼22% -10%
LG K4 2017
2359 Points ∼14% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (4092 - 4150, n=2)
4121 Points ∼25% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2465 - 160199, n=505)
16687 Points ∼100% +302%
1280x720 offscreen Ice Storm Unlimited Score (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
4577 Points ∼32%
Lenovo Moto E4
3671 Points ∼26% -20%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
4381 Points ∼31% -4%
LG K4 2017
2609 Points ∼18% -43%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (4488 - 4577, n=2)
4533 Points ∼32% -1%
Average of class Smartphone (2915 - 77599, n=506)
14150 Points ∼100% +209%
GFXBench (DX / GLBenchmark) 2.7
1920x1080 T-Rex HD Offscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
5.4 fps ∼19%
Lenovo Moto E4
6 fps ∼21% +11%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
6.8 fps ∼23% +26%
LG K4 2017
3.4 fps ∼12% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (3.25 - 5.4, n=3)
4.68 fps ∼16% -13%
Average of class Smartphone (4.1 - 251, n=530)
29.1 fps ∼100% +439%
T-Rex HD Onscreen C24Z16 (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
9.6 fps ∼40%
Lenovo Moto E4
11 fps ∼46% +15%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
11 fps ∼46% +15%
LG K4 2017
10 fps ∼42% +4%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (5.67 - 9.6, n=3)
8.19 fps ∼34% -15%
Average of class Smartphone (6.9 - 120, n=533)
24 fps ∼100% +150%
GFXBench 3.0
off screen Manhattan Offscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
1.6 fps ∼10%
Lenovo Moto E4
2.2 fps ∼14% +38%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
2.6 fps ∼17% +63%
LG K4 2017
1 fps ∼6% -37%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (1.6 - 1.8, n=2)
1.7 fps ∼11% +6%
Average of class Smartphone (2.2 - 115, n=452)
15.5 fps ∼100% +869%
on screen Manhattan Onscreen OGL (Classer selon les valeurs)
Nokia 2
4.4 fps ∼29%
Lenovo Moto E4
4.8 fps ∼32% +9%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
5.4 fps ∼36% +23%
LG K4 2017
5.4 fps ∼36% +23%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (3.8 - 4.4, n=2)
4.1 fps ∼27% -7%
Average of class Smartphone (4.4 - 115, n=455)
15.2 fps ∼100% +245%
GFXBench 3.1
off screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Offscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Lenovo Moto E4
1.4 fps ∼11%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
1.7 fps ∼13%
Average of class Smartphone (1.3 - 69.3, n=317)
13.3 fps ∼100%
on screen Manhattan ES 3.1 Onscreen (Classer selon les valeurs)
Lenovo Moto E4
14 fps ∼100%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
3.8 fps ∼27%
Average of class Smartphone (2.6 - 110, n=319)
13.2 fps ∼94%

Légende

 
Nokia 2 Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009, Qualcomm Adreno 304, 8 GB eMMC Flash
 
Lenovo Moto E4 Mediatek MT6737, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 Samsung Exynos 7570 Quad, ARM Mali-T720 MP2, 16 GB eMMC Flash
 
LG K4 2017 Qualcomm Snapdragon 210 MSM8909, Qualcomm Adreno 304, 8 GB eMMC Flash
JetStream 1.1 - 1.1 Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (10.8 - 273, n=387)
35.1 Points ∼100% +202%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 (Chrome 59)
17.17 Points ∼49% +48%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
14.57 Points ∼42% +26%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (11.6 - 14.2, n=2)
12.9 Points ∼37% +11%
Nokia 2 (Chrome 65)
11.607 Points ∼33%
LG K4 2017
10 Points ∼28% -14%
Octane V2 - Total Score
Average of class Smartphone (1506 - 43280, n=523)
5237 Points ∼100% +169%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 (Chrome 59)
2921 Points ∼56% +50%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
2270 Points ∼43% +17%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (1948 - 2574, n=3)
2225 Points ∼42% +14%
Nokia 2 (Chrome 65)
1948 Points ∼37%
LG K4 2017
1506 Points ∼29% -23%
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Total Score
LG K4 2017
19723.2 ms * ∼100% -2%
Nokia 2 (Chrome 65)
19274.5 ms * ∼98%
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009 (15229 - 19275, n=3)
17580 ms * ∼89% +9%
Lenovo Moto E4 (Chrome 60)
17184.6 ms * ∼87% +11%
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 (Chrome 59)
12791 ms * ∼65% +34%
Average of class Smartphone (603 - 59466, n=542)
11780 ms * ∼60% +39%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Nokia 2Lenovo Moto E4Samsung Galaxy J3 2017LG K4 2017Average 8 GB eMMC FlashAverage of class Smartphone
AndroBench 3-5
42%
12%
-18%
-36%
40%
Sequential Write 256KB SDCard
61.18 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
44.9
-27%
59.6
-3%
44.41 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-27%
25.5 (11.2 - 61.2, n=19)
-58%
44.2 (3.4 - 87.1, n=294)
-28%
Sequential Read 256KB SDCard
81.93 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M501)
65.4
-20%
70.3
-14%
75.28 (Toshiba Exceria Pro M401)
-8%
39 (16.3 - 81.9, n=19)
-52%
62.6 (8.2 - 96.5, n=294)
-24%
Random Write 4KB
8.1
29.2
260%
9.5
17%
5.06 (1.08 - 14, n=49)
-38%
14.1 (0.14 - 164, n=575)
74%
Random Read 4KB
17.44
18.7
7%
24
38%
16.9 (8 - 27.3, n=49)
-3%
35.7 (1.59 - 173, n=575)
105%
Sequential Write 256KB
50.77
45.3
-11%
51
0%
20.8 (6.22 - 51.8, n=49)
-59%
74.7 (2.99 - 228, n=575)
47%
Sequential Read 256KB
131.15
187.6
43%
177.7
35%
122 (38.1 - 208, n=49)
-7%
218 (12.1 - 895, n=575)
66%
 31 °C31.5 °C31.2 °C 
 32.1 °C31.6 °C31.5 °C 
 31.6 °C31.6 °C29.6 °C 
Maximum: 32.1 °C
Moyenne: 31.3 °C
28.1 °C28.9 °C30.6 °C
27.8 °C29.2 °C33.6 °C
27.9 °C29.9 °C33.4 °C
Maximum: 33.6 °C
Moyenne: 29.9 °C
Alimentation (valeur maximale)  27.3 °C | Température ambiante de la pièce 21.3 °C | Voltcraft IR-260
dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2028.629.52524.922.43124.625.74026.4235030.831.76323.623.48020.222.110019.922.812517.619.816019.128.820019.128.625017.434.731516.941.640016.847.850015.153.963016.560.980015.668.910001574.4125015.574.5160015.374.2200015.772.1250015.570.5315015.574.1400015.473.2500015.874.163001677800015.873.21000016.1611250016.157.11600017.365SPL27.984.9N158.7median 16Nokia 2median 65Delta0.616.131.129.231.127.128.627.128.328.728.332.734.632.728.227.728.226.124.826.126.531.526.526.133.826.131.228.331.223.522.923.527.521.127.535.42035.445.82045.854.32254.362.822.962.86819.36871.118.371.173.618.373.672.717.972.775.716.475.77516.57575.316.775.375.616.275.674.316.174.372.816.272.872.816.172.871.416.171.474.316.174.371.51671.561.316.161.385.629.985.662.31.462.3median 71.4Lenovo Moto E4median 17.9median 71.413.32.813.328.231.128.230.330.130.329.329.929.333.634.433.62834.62827.229.327.229.232.229.231.934.131.939.836.939.836.423.836.448.421.548.451.720.951.757.121.357.159.819.759.865.820.165.867.618.567.667.719.367.769.517.869.567.817.467.867.516.467.567.616.467.667.916.667.97116.17174.716.174.77116.17161166158.716.158.758.916.158.951.31651.339.81639.880.930.180.947.91.447.9median 61Samsung Galaxy J3 2017median 17.4median 618.73.78.731.63025.427.225.32632.927.133.629.431.635.328.430.92729.720.827.22224.821.329.620.838.221.242.719.450.619.558.917.764.117.970.317.876.817.375.817.474.716.772.117.271.718.271.317.973.817.674.117.777.917.881.417.973.518.166.118.261.23086.51.366.4median 17.9LG K4 2017median 70.31.314.1hearing rangehide median Pink Noise
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Nokia 2 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (84.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 35.6% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (8.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 8.9% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 8% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(-) | overall sound is not linear (30.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 82% of all tested devices in this class were better, 7% similar, 11% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 89% of all tested devices were better, 4% similar, 7% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Lenovo Moto E4 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (85.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 39.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (11% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 5.1% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (24.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 46% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 40% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 70% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 23% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Samsung Galaxy J3 2017 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (80.9 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 16.8% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (13.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6% higher than median
(+) | mids are linear (4.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | higher highs - on average 6.4% higher than median
(±) | linearity of highs is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (22.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 26% of all tested devices in this class were better, 10% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 56% of all tested devices were better, 8% similar, 36% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

LG K4 2017 audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.5 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(-) | nearly no bass - on average 38.2% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | reduced mids - on average 7% lower than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 4.5% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (5.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (27.4% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 65% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 26% worse
» The best had a delta of 13%, average was 25%, worst was 44%
Compared to all devices tested
» 80% of all tested devices were better, 5% similar, 15% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Consommation énergétique
Éteint/en veilledarklight 0.02 / 0.22 Watts
Au reposdarkmidlight 0.55 / 1.02 / 1.09 Watts
Fortement sollicité midlight 4.48 / 5.32 Watts
 color bar
Légende: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Nokia 2
4100 mAh
Lenovo Moto E4
2800 mAh
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
2400 mAh
LG K4 2017
2500 mAh
Average Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 APQ8009
 
Average of class Smartphone
 
Power Consumption
-50%
-35%
13%
-84%
-41%
Idle Minimum *
0.55
0.87
-58%
0.82
-49%
0.64
-16%
1.263 (0.55 - 2.54, n=3)
-130%
0.881 (0.2 - 3.4, n=603)
-60%
Idle Average *
1.02
2.38
-133%
1.94
-90%
1.14
-12%
2.41 (1.02 - 5.1, n=3)
-136%
1.718 (0.6 - 6.2, n=602)
-68%
Idle Maximum *
1.09
2.47
-127%
2.06
-89%
1.25
-15%
2.5 (1.09 - 5.24, n=3)
-129%
1.987 (0.74 - 6.6, n=603)
-82%
Load Average *
4.48
2.63
41%
3.31
26%
2.26
50%
5.2 (4.04 - 7.07, n=3)
-16%
4.02 (0.8 - 10.8, n=597)
10%
Load Maximum *
5.32
3.86
27%
3.89
27%
2.36
56%
5.88 (4.07 - 8.24, n=3)
-11%
5.68 (1.2 - 14.2, n=597)
-7%

* ... Moindre est la valeur, meilleures sont les performances

Autonomie
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
14h 00min
Nokia 2
4100 mAh
Lenovo Moto E4
2800 mAh
Samsung Galaxy J3 2017
2400 mAh
LG K4 2017
2500 mAh
Autonomie de la batterie
-38%
-14%
-28%
Reader / Idle
1302
1425
WiFi v1.3
840
522
-38%
722
-14%
606
-28%
Load
316
305
H.264
608
819

Points positifs

+ bonne autonomie
+ Android sans surcouche
+ emplacements double SIM et micro SD dédiés

Points négatifs

- processeur trop lent
- appareils photo basse résolution
- peu lisible en pleine lumière
En test : le Nokia 2. Modèle de test aimablement fourni par HMD Global.
En test : le Nokia 2. Modèle de test aimablement fourni par HMD Global.

Nous apprécions le Nokia 2 pour son excellente autonomie, sa construction robuste, sa version d’Android pur, la promesse de mises à jour fréquentes, et la souplesse que permet le fait d’avoir à la fois un emplacement double SIM et un emplacement micro SD. Pour seulement 40 € de plus, vous pouvez cependant avoir le Nokia 3, qui possède 16 Go de stockage et 2 Go de RAM, mais une batterie beaucoup plus petite.

Le Nokia 2 se démarque par son autonomie et par la qualité de ses finitions. Mais il faut envisager, avant de l’acheter, de dépenser un peu plus d’argent pour le Nokia 3 mieux équipé.

Malheureusement, le Nokia 2 possède un même écran bas de gamme, de mêmes appareils photo et une même qualité sonore que les autres smartphones d’entrée de gamme. La plus grosse faiblesse du Nokia est sans aucun doute son processeur si lent, le Qualcomm Snapdragon 212.

L’intégralité de cette critique est disponible en anglais en suivant ce lien.

Nokia 2 - 04/03/2018 v6
Thomas Meyer

Châssis
76%
Clavier
56 / 75 → 74%
Dispositif de pointage
67%
Connectivité
33 / 60 → 55%
Poids
91%
Autonomie
97%
Écran
82%
Performances en jeu
4 / 63 → 6%
Performances dans les applications
19 / 70 → 27%
Chauffe
94%
Nuisance sonore
100%
Audio
55 / 91 → 60%
Appareil photo
44%
Moyenne
63%
73%
Smartphone - Moyenne compensée

Pricecompare

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Revues et rapports de ordinateurs portatifs et smartphones, ordiphones > Critiques > Courte critique du smartphone Nokia 2
Thomas Meyer, 2018-05- 3 (Update: 2018-05- 3)