The HTC U Ultra and U Play represent a fascinating divergence in HTC’s 2017 lineup. The U Ultra aimed for a flagship experience, albeit one released after the peak of the Snapdragon 835 cycle, while the U Play targeted a more budget-conscious consumer. This comparison dissects the core differences between these two devices, focusing on where the U Ultra’s premium components translate to real-world benefits and whether the U Play offers sufficient performance for everyday tasks.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For users prioritizing performance and display quality, the HTC U Ultra is the clear winner. Its Snapdragon 821 chipset and superior display contrast ratio deliver a smoother, more vibrant experience. However, the U Play provides a compelling value proposition for those seeking a functional smartphone without the flagship price tag.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 - SIM 1 & SIM 2 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 - SIM 1 & SIM 2 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17, 20, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 28, 38, 40 |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (3CA) Cat11 600/50 Mbps | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE (2CA) Cat6 300/50 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2017, January 12. Released 2017, February 21 | 2017, January. Released 2017, February |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | Glass front (Gorilla Glass 5 or Sapphire crystal), glass back, aluminum frame | Glass front (Gorilla Glass), plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 162.4 x 79.8 x 8 mm (6.39 x 3.14 x 0.31 in) | 146 x 72.9 x 8 mm (5.75 x 2.87 x 0.31 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 170 g (6.00 oz) | 145 g (5.11 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass 5 (64 GB version)Sapphire crystal glass (128 GB version) | Corning Gorilla Glass (unspecified version) |
| Resolution | 1440 x 2560 pixels, 16:9 ratio (~513 ppi density) | 1080 x 1920 pixels, 16:9 ratio (~428 ppi density) |
| Size | 5.7 inches, 90.3 cm2 (~69.7% screen-to-body ratio) | 5.2 inches, 73.2 cm2 (~68.7% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | Super LCD5 | Super LCD |
| | Secondary display, 160 x 1040 pixels, 2 inches | - |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Quad-core (2x2.15 GHz Kryo & 2x1.6 GHz Kryo) | Octa-core (4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A53 & 4x1.1 GHz Cortex-A53) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm MSM8996 Snapdragon 821 (14 nm) | Mediatek MT6755 Helio P10 (28 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 530 | Mali-T860MP2 |
| OS | Android 7.0 (Nougat), upgradable to Android 8.0 (Oreo) | Android 6.0 (Marshmallow) |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM | 32GB 3GB RAM, 64GB 4GB RAM |
| | - | eMMC 5.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | Laser AF, Dual-LED dual-tone flash, panorama | Dual-LED dual-tone flash, panorama |
| Single | 12 MP, f/1.8, 26mm (wide), 1/2.3", 1.55µm, PDAF, OIS | 16 MP, f/2.0, 28mm (wide), 1/3.1", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS |
| Video | 4K@30fps (24-bit/192kHz audio), 720p@120fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 16 MP, f/2.0, 27mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm | 16 MP, f/2.0, 27mm (wide), 1/3.06", 1.0µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | No | No |
| 35mm jack | No | No |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| | 24-bit/192kHz audio
| - |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 4.2, A2DP, LE | 4.2, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | Yes | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS |
| Radio | No | No |
| USB | USB Type-C 3.1 | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA | Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Fingerprint (front-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (front-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity, compass |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired, QC3 | 10W wired |
| Stand-by | Up to 312 h (3G) | Up to 427 h (3G) |
| Talk time | Up to 26 h (3G) | Up to 15 h (3G) |
| Type | Li-Ion 3000 mAh, non-removable | Li-Ion 2500 mAh, non-removable |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Brilliant Black, Cosmetic Pink, Ice White, Sapphire Blue | Brilliant Black, Cosmetic Pink, Ice White, Sapphire Blue |
| Models | U Ultra, U-1u, 2PZF1 | U Play, U-2u, 2PZM3 |
| Price | About 250 EUR | About 150 EUR |
| Tests |
|---|
| Battery life | Endurance rating 81h | - |
| Camera |
Photo / Video | - |
| Display |
Contrast ratio: 1831 (nominal), 3.453 (sunlight) | - |
| Loudspeaker |
Voice 61dB / Noise 73dB / Ring 86dB | - |
| Performance |
GFXBench: 10fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) | - |
HTC U Ultra
- Superior performance with Snapdragon 821
- High-contrast display for vibrant visuals
- Faster 18W Quick Charge 3.0 support
- Likely higher price point
- Potentially larger and heavier design
HTC U Play
- More affordable price
- Decent battery life for basic usage
- Potentially more compact form factor
- Significantly slower performance
- Slower 10W charging
- Inferior display quality
Display Comparison
The HTC U Ultra boasts a significantly more capable display, evidenced by its contrast ratios of 1831 (nominal) and 3453 (sunlight). This translates to deeper blacks and improved visibility in bright outdoor conditions compared to the U Play, which lacks detailed display specifications. While both likely utilize LCD panels, the U Ultra’s higher contrast suggests a more advanced backlight and panel calibration. This difference is crucial for users who frequently consume video content or work outdoors.
Camera Comparison
Both devices are listed with 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but detailed camera specifications are absent. Given the U Ultra’s flagship positioning, it likely features a more sophisticated camera system with a larger sensor and improved image processing. The U Play, targeting a lower price point, likely employs a more basic camera module. Without specific sensor sizes or aperture information, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgment, but the U Ultra’s overall hardware superiority suggests a better photographic experience.
Performance
The core difference lies in the chipsets: the U Ultra features the Qualcomm MSM8996 Snapdragon 821, a 14nm processor with a quad-core configuration (2x2.15 GHz Kryo & 2x1.6 GHz Kryo), while the U Play utilizes the Mediatek MT6755 Helio P10, a less efficient 28nm chip with an octa-core setup (4x2.0 GHz Cortex-A53 & 4x1.1 GHz Cortex-A53). The Snapdragon 821’s Kryo cores offer superior single-core performance, crucial for responsive app launches and smooth multitasking. The Helio P10’s octa-core design focuses on multi-threaded tasks, but its older 28nm process results in lower efficiency and potentially more heat generation. The U Ultra will demonstrably outperform the U Play in graphically intensive games and demanding applications.
Battery Life
The HTC U Ultra achieves an endurance rating of 81 hours, indicating strong battery life. While the U Play’s battery capacity is not specified, its less power-hungry Helio P10 chipset and lack of high-end display features likely contribute to reasonable battery performance. However, the U Ultra’s 18W wired charging with QC3 support provides a significant advantage, allowing for much faster charging times compared to the U Play’s 10W wired charging. This means less downtime and more time using the device.
Buying Guide
Buy the HTC U Ultra if you need a phone capable of handling demanding applications, enjoy media consumption with a high-contrast display, and value faster charging speeds. Buy the HTC U Play if you prioritize affordability, require a reliable daily driver for basic tasks, and are comfortable with a less powerful processor and slower charging.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Is the Snapdragon 821 in the U Ultra still capable of running modern apps and games?
While not the latest chipset, the Snapdragon 821 remains a capable performer. It can handle most modern apps and games, though demanding titles may require reduced graphics settings. It's a significant step up from the Helio P10 in the U Play.
❓ Does the U Play suffer from significant performance throttling under sustained load?
The Mediatek Helio P10, built on a 28nm process, is prone to throttling under prolonged heavy use. While suitable for everyday tasks, extended gaming sessions or video editing may result in noticeable performance drops as the chip heats up.
❓ How does the difference in charging speed impact daily use between the two devices?
The U Ultra’s 18W Quick Charge 3.0 support allows for a much faster top-up. A quick 30-minute charge can provide a substantial amount of battery life, whereas the U Play’s 10W charging will take considerably longer to achieve the same result. This is a significant convenience factor for users who frequently need to recharge their phones.
