Razor sharp Cubot X17 reviewed

Razor sharp Cubot X17 reviewed


Review: Ultrathin, metal, inexpensive

Chinese smartphone maker Cubot recently upped the ante in the $150 to $200 budget smartphone segment with a couple of ultrathin phones. Both sport a metal frame, good build quality, and look like pricey devices, but they offer limited performance due to their anorexic profile.

We already had a chance to review the Cubot X16, and today we will be looking at the Cubot X17. So what are the differences? Well, there aren’t that many. Both phones share the same frame, same processor and OS. The Cubot X17 has more RAM, different camera optics, and a metal back in lieu of glass.

IMG 7927

Both devices are designed around a 4.1mm alloy frame, topped off by gently curved glass at the front. They are identical from the front. However, at the back the X17 boasts a different camera lens and an alloy plate on the back, flanked by two plastic strips at the top and bottom.

IMG 7929

The Cubot X17 is just 6.2mm thick, which is impressive for such an inexpensive device. Granted, there are quite a few powerful phablets in the same bracket, but none of them is as compact as the X17. The Cubot X17 is based on MediaTek’s MT6735 processor, it has 3GB of RAM, 16GB of internal storage, a 13-megapixel main camera, and a decent 5-inch 1080p panel. The phone costs$169 via EverBuying.

Design and Build Quality

Ultrathin phones tend to ship with slower processors and smaller batteries than their bigger counterparts. That said, we have to admit Cubot managed to squeeze a lot of nice components into its budget X-series.

IMG 7970

While you don’t get a very powerful processor, the MT6735 is still a force to be reckoned with, at least in this price segment. It’s a modern 64-bit quad-core processor, based on Cortex-A53 cores backed by Mali-T720 graphics. More importantly, the phone has a 2500mAh battery and good 13-megapixel camera.

right

The layout is more or less standard. The power and volume buttons are on the right.

left

The SIM tray is located on the left.

top

The micro USB and audio out are located at the top and bottom respectively.

bottom

The camera housing is different, too. It’s not flush with the back like on the X16. It protrudes a bit, but not by much. You also get a dual-LED flash, whereas the X16 has a single LED.

IMG 7986

While the back is metal, this is not a unibody design. The metal back just replaces the glass back on the X16, but it’s not an integral part of the chassis.

On the other hand, the metal gives the phone a nice tactile feeling. Curved glass at the front, thin metal frame, alloy back – they all feel premium. The plastic bits aren’t as good, but there aren’t that many to begin with, just the thin, white bezels and the trim on the rear.

IMG 7931

The finish is quite good, although it’s not on a par with big brand phones. We are not sure what sort of metal Cubot is using. The rear feels like aluminium, while the frame feels like stainless steel, or some sort of alloy with similar properties. The phone’s not light, either. At 163 grams, it’s as heavy as many plastic 5.5-inch phablets, but it also happens to feel a lot better than these oversized devices.

IMG 7970

What about the design? Is it original? It is, sort of, but it obviously takes a few cues from Huawei, Vivo and other vendors with similar ultrathin designs. It does not look like a clone, and the design is pretty good for this sort of device. It looks and feels more expensive than it should, which was probably what Cubot was going for all along.

All in all, we have no complaints about the build quality or choice of materials. The design isn’t too spectacular, but it’s ok.

Cubot X17 Specs and Performance

You can’t expect miracles from a budget phone, especially if it’s designed to be give off the impression of a premium device. That leaves a smaller hardware budget, so you don’t really get the hottest hardware.

  • Let’s take a closer look at the Cubot X17 spec:
  • SoC: MediaTek MT6735A, 28nm
  • CPU: four Cortex-A53 cores up to 1.3GHz
  • GPU: ARM Mali-T720 MP2 GPU at up to 450MHz
  • RAM: 3GB LPDDR3 533MHz
  • Storage: 16GB eMMC 4.5 internal storage, expandable via microSDXC slot
  • Display: 5-inch 1080p IPS panel (JDI)
  • OS: Android 5.1
  • Rear camera: 13-megapixel sensor, f/2.2 aperture, 5-element lens
  • Front facing camera: 5-megapixel sensor, f/2.2 aperture, 88 degree field of view.
  • Battery: 2500mAh lithium ion, non-removable
  • Dimensions: 143.4 x 69.4 x 6.1 mm
  • Weight: 163g
  • WiFi and Bluetooth: 802.11b/g/n WiFi and Bluetooth 4.0
  • Sensors: ambient light, accelerometer, proximity, GPS, A-GPS
  • SIM card: dual SIM (micro SIM and nano SIM), dual standby
  • Network support:
    2G: GSM 850/900/1800/1900MHz
    3G: WCDMA 900/2100MHz
    4G: FDD-LTE: 800/1800/2100/2600MHz (Please check local compatibility prior to making a purchase)

As you can see, the spec is not too impressive and falls short of the latest budget devices. The MT6735 may seem underpowered in a world of cheap octa-core devices, but it’s really not much of a bottleneck in most situations.

The phone packs a lot of RAM for this particular SoC, but that doesn’t help boost performance very much. The added RAM may come in handy in some situations, due to the phone’s use of eMMC 4.51 storage. However, it’s really not a difference anyone will notice in real life.

The limited sensor suite could be an issue for some users. There’s no compass or gyro, but at least the phone supports some useful gestures (double tap to wake for example).

In terms of sheer performance, the phone doesn’t manage to pull away from its 2GB sibling.

3dmark

The tiny Mali-T720 GPU is clearly unable to keep up with more powerful mobile GPUs such as the Adreno 405 and Mali-T760. As a result, the MT6735 is not a good choice for anyone who wants to run a lot of 3D games on their phone.

antutu

Second to last in Antutu. However, if you want to put things into perspective, note that the Snapdragon 615, an octa-core part, ends up a mere 10% faster.

basemark

Basemark likes a lot of RAM and fast storage. While the X17 packs 3GB of RAM, the rest of the hardware platform is not powerful enough to make good use of it.

geeksingle

Geekbench single-core results are on a par with other Cortex-A53 devices.

geekmulti

The difference between quad- and octa-core Cortex-A53 processors becomes more apparent in the multicore test. However, the Snapdragon 615 isn’t far ahead, despite the fact that it has eight A53 cores.

Bottom line: This is not a phone someone will buy for performance. It’s a device for fashionistas on a budget, not enthusiasts.

Camera, Display and Audio Quality

The Cubot X17 uses a JDI 5-inch 1080p IPS display and it delivers good results. This same panel is apparently used on a range of various devices and there’s no room for complaints.

Display quality is above average for a phone in this price bracket. The addition of MediaTek MiraVision allows users to tweak a number of crucial display settings, but to be honest, display quality is a nonissue even on default settings.

IMG 7938

Like the X16, the X17 has a small rear-facing speaker. It’s underpowered and sound quality is not that good, but it’s good enough for the occasional speaker call.

speaker rear

The microphone is located at the front, which is not uncommon on ultrathin phones. There’s no noise cancelling microphone, but call quality is good nonetheless. Audio output via the 3.5mm jack is good.

In our Cubot X16 review, we noted that many thin phones have subpar camera optics, but Cubot appears to be an exception. Somehow the engineers managed to squeeze in a decent sensor behind some relatively good optics.

IMG 7963

Camera quality is impressive for such a thin and cheap phone. The rear camera beats most 13-megapixel units we had a chance to test on competing phones, although it still falls short of most big-brand devices with the same megapixel count. The front camera is just as good, and boasts a wide field of view.

Most sample images we took were properly exposed and focused. Focus can be a bit sluggish in low-light situations, and the stock camera app could have been faster.

HDRpark

The Cubot X16 exhibited similar behaviour, but it was noticeably worse in HDR. With the X17, Cubot obviously tweaked the HDR mode, making it a lot more useful. There’s still some ghosting, but it’s much better than on the X16.

HDR100

Indoor results were good, especially in daylight.

flasedan

As far as night photography goes, the phone’s slow aperture does not help. On top of that, the shots can end up under-exposed. Anyway, we still managed to get some relatively good results, all things considered.

flasenoc

Overall, both the Cubot X16 and X17 have above average cameras for their price range, and the X17 has a much better HDR mode. Considering the price, you get pretty capable cameras.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s