Motorola Moto G - new budget smartphone champion?

Associate
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Posts
332
Looks like competition to the Lumia 520 range of phones, though no micro SD slot is a minus
everything else looks good though if they can hit that price of £135
 
Associate
Joined
30 Dec 2005
Posts
902
Location
Calgary
I just bought a Moto X and it's a fantastic phone. I can't believe how monumentally stupid Motorola/Google are being with not selling it in more markets and marketing it properly. Hopefully the Moto G isn't too much of a downgrade from the X.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Dec 2007
Posts
1,607
I just bought a Moto X and it's a fantastic phone. I can't believe how monumentally stupid Motorola/Google are being with not selling it in more markets and marketing it properly. Hopefully the Moto G isn't too much of a downgrade from the X.

I can't believe that myself. I would probably have bought one. Broke my Razr HD, so have bought a s/h HTC One last week. Good as the Moto G might be for the price I can't help but feel if this is the Moto X for the rest of the world then it's a big letdown - could be wrong mind you :o Good as the Moto X might be I read that they are not selling as well as Motorola hoped.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Jul 2003
Posts
4,250
Location
Larndarn
It is totally bizarre that the moto x came out with 2 CPU cores and that was deemed sufficient. Yet in this phone they have dumped in 4 cpu cores (?) and a poorer camera.

Surely a smarter move (given the moto x is not available in Europe) would to save on the CPU costs (i.e. dual core) in order to put in a solid camera.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
30,903
Location
Shropshire
It is totally bizarre that the moto x came out with 2 CPU cores and that was deemed sufficient. Yet in this phone they have dumped in 4 cpu cores (?) and a poorer camera.

Surely a smarter move (given the moto x is not available in Europe) would to save on the CPU costs (i.e. dual core) in order to put in a solid camera.

The SoC may well just have been what they could get on a cheap deal.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Sep 2005
Posts
837
It is totally bizarre that the moto x came out with 2 CPU cores and that was deemed sufficient. Yet in this phone they have dumped in 4 cpu cores (?) and a poorer camera.
You're comparing a Dual Krait @ 1.7GHz with a quad A7 @ (I think) 1.2GHz ... so a simple "G has more cores than X so must be better" doesn't make any sense (unless you are in the marketing department!)
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Jul 2003
Posts
4,250
Location
Larndarn
Ah ok; I thought they were using 4 Krait cores (which they should be given that the lumia 520 manages to at a good price)

The x8 costs a lot because of the "other cores" there are only 2 CPU cores on the x8 and that was deemed sufficient. My point was that shoving 4 on this makes no sense. I understood basic tasks to be essentially limited to using 2 cores. A quad core cpu on this therefore is somewhat pointless.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
15 Sep 2005
Posts
837
A quad core cpu on this therefore is somewhat pointless.
Probably correct ... but (as my previous reply hinted) is all down to marketing - most people buying phones have no idea what the differences between different processors are so if they look at phone A with a dual core and phone B with a quad core then phone B must be twice as powerful and thus twice as good since it has twice as many cores. Plus given Apples decision to use the same naming system for its cores as ARM do for their reference designs but with completely different meanings I guess some people will think that an A7 must be one step up from the 64bit A6 in the 5s!
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2006
Posts
4,103
Location
Wakefield
compared with what exactly, I don't know of (m)any phones with that sort of spec for £135 SIM FREE (well it could be payg but it should be unlocked).... it's not very high spec if you compare it to a nexus 5 obviously but then it is over under half the price :rolleyes:

After re-reading the OP it seems I mis-read it due to bad grammar. I read the post as "Google have to really up the ante" when in fact the word to wasn't in there. Nothing to see here.
 
Back
Top Bottom