Honor's X series consistently delivers compelling value in the budget smartphone space. The X7c and X8c represent two distinct approaches to achieving affordability. The X7c leverages the newer, more efficient Snapdragon 4 Gen 2, while the X8c opts for the Snapdragon 685. This comparison dissects the key differences to determine which device best suits your needs.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Honor X8c emerges as the better choice. While the X7c's 4nm process offers theoretical efficiency gains, the X8c's Snapdragon 685, with its higher clocked Cortex-A73 cores, delivers noticeably snappier performance in everyday tasks and light gaming, making it the more responsive device.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | LTE | LTE |
| 5G bands | SA/NSA | - |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE, 5G | HSPA, LTE |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE / 5G | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2025, August 18 | 2025, January 14 |
| Status | Available. Released 2025, August 20 | Available. Released 2025, January 20 |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front, plastic frame, plastic back or silicone polymer back (eco leather) |
| Dimensions | 166.9 x 76.8 x 8.2 mm (6.57 x 3.02 x 0.32 in) | 161.1 x 74.6 x 7.1 mm (6.34 x 2.94 x 0.28 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 193 g (6.81 oz) | 174 g (6.14 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Aluminosilicate glass | - |
| Resolution | 1080 x 2412 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~389 ppi density) | 1080 x 2412 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~394 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.8 inches, 111.3 cm2 (~86.8% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.7 inches, 108.0 cm2 (~89.9% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | TFT LCD, 120Hz, 850 nits (peak) | AMOLED, 120Hz, 1200 nits (HBM), 2800 nits (peak) |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A78 & 6x1.95 GHz Cortex-A55) | Octa-core (4x2.8 GHz Cortex-A73 & 4x1.9 GHz Cortex-A53) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM4450 Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 (4 nm) | Qualcomm SM6225 Snapdragon 685 (6 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 613 | Adreno 610 |
| OS | Android 14, MagicOS 8 | Android 15, MagicOS 9 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | No | No |
| Internal | 256GB 8GB RAM | 128GB 6GB RAM, 128GB 8GB RAM, 256GB 8GB RAM, 512GB 8GB RAM |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Dual | 50 MP, f/1.8, (wide), PDAF
Auxiliary lens | 108 MP, f/1.8, 24mm (wide), 1/1.67", PDAF, OIS
5 MP, f/2.2, (ultrawide) |
| Features | LED flash, HDR | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps, gyro-EIS |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Single | 5 MP, f/2.2, (wide) | 50 MP, f/2.1, (wide) |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 35mm jack | Yes | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0/5.1, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes (market/region dependent) | Yes (market/region dependent) |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (side-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (under display, optical), accelerometer, gyro, compass, proximity (ultrasonic) |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 35W wired | 35W wired |
| Type | Li-Po 5200 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Moonlight White, Forest Green | Marrs Green, Midnight Black, Moonlight White, Cloud Purple |
| Models | ALT-NX1 | ABR-LX1, ABR-LX2, ABR-LX3 |
| Price | About 150 EUR | € 190.78 / $ 213.42 / £ 159.00 |
Honor X7c
- Potentially better battery life under minimal load due to 4nm process.
- Newer chipset architecture (Snapdragon 4 Gen 2).
- Competitive 35W fast charging.
- Less powerful CPU cores compared to the X8c.
- May struggle with demanding applications and games.
- Performance may feel sluggish compared to the X8c.
Honor X8c
- More powerful CPU cores (Cortex-A73) for smoother performance.
- Snappier user experience and faster app loading times.
- Competitive 35W fast charging.
- Larger fabrication process (6nm) may result in slightly higher power consumption.
- Older chipset architecture (Snapdragon 685).
- May not offer significantly improved battery life over the X7c.
Display Comparison
Both the Honor X7c and X8c likely feature LCD panels, typical for this price bracket. Specific details like resolution and peak brightness are not provided, but the focus here is on the chipsets. Display quality will likely be similar, with neither phone expected to excel in color accuracy or viewing angles. Bezels are also likely comparable, contributing minimally to differentiating factors.
Camera Comparison
Without detailed camera specifications, a direct comparison is difficult. However, both phones likely employ similar budget camera setups. The image signal processor (ISP) within the Snapdragon 685 of the X8c *may* offer slightly better image processing capabilities, potentially leading to improved dynamic range and noise reduction. The absence of OIS on either device suggests reliance on software stabilization, where the X8c’s more powerful processor could provide an edge. Any 2MP macro or depth sensors are likely to offer minimal benefit.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets. The Honor X7c’s Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 (4nm) features a 2x2.2 GHz Cortex-A78 and 6x1.95 GHz Cortex-A55 configuration. This contrasts with the X8c’s Snapdragon 685 (6nm) which uses a 4x2.8 GHz Cortex-A73 and 4x1.9 GHz Cortex-A53 setup. While the X7c benefits from a smaller fabrication process (4nm vs 6nm), the X8c’s Cortex-A73 cores are significantly more powerful than the X7c’s Cortex-A78 cores, resulting in superior single-core and multi-core performance. This translates to faster app loading times and smoother multitasking on the X8c. The 6nm process on the X8c also provides a good balance between performance and efficiency.
Battery Life
Both devices feature 35W wired charging, suggesting similar charging speeds – approximately 60-70 minutes for a full charge. While battery capacity isn't specified, the Snapdragon 4 Gen 2’s 4nm process *should* offer better power efficiency under light loads. However, the X8c’s more efficient use of processing power during active tasks could offset this advantage. Real-world battery life will depend heavily on usage patterns, but the X8c’s more powerful processor may drain the battery faster during demanding tasks.
Buying Guide
Buy the Honor X7c if you prioritize long-term efficiency and are primarily focused on basic smartphone tasks like messaging, calls, and light social media. Its 4nm chipset *should* translate to better battery life under minimal load. Buy the Honor X8c if you value a more responsive user experience, enjoy occasional gaming, and want a phone that feels quicker in daily use. The Snapdragon 685 provides a tangible performance boost for a slightly higher price.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 685 in the Honor X8c overheat during prolonged gaming sessions?
The Snapdragon 685 is a relatively efficient chipset. While it may get warm during extended gaming, it's unlikely to experience significant thermal throttling. The 6nm process helps manage heat dissipation, and the X8c isn't designed for graphically intensive AAA titles, focusing instead on lighter gaming experiences.
❓ Is the difference in CPU architecture (A78 vs A73) noticeable in everyday tasks like browsing and social media?
Yes, the difference is noticeable. The Cortex-A73 cores in the Snapdragon 685 are more powerful than the Cortex-A78 cores in the Snapdragon 4 Gen 2. This translates to faster app launch times, smoother scrolling, and a more responsive overall user experience, even in everyday tasks.
❓ Does the Honor X7c's 4nm process significantly improve battery life compared to the X8c?
While the 4nm process *should* improve efficiency, the X8c's more powerful processor may offset this advantage during active use. The difference in battery life will likely be most noticeable under light loads, such as standby time or minimal app usage. For heavy users, the difference may be minimal.
