The Nokia 3.1 C and Nokia 2.2 represent the lower end of HMD Global’s smartphone offerings, targeting users prioritizing affordability. While both devices share a similar price bracket and basic functionality, they diverge significantly in their core processing power, stemming from the choice between Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 429 and MediaTek’s Helio A22. This comparison dissects these differences to determine which phone delivers the best experience for everyday tasks.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For the average user, the Nokia 3.1 C emerges as the slightly better choice. Its Qualcomm Snapdragon 429 chipset, despite being a generation older, offers a more refined architecture and generally smoother performance than the MediaTek Helio A22 found in the Nokia 2.2, making it better suited for multitasking and app responsiveness.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 1700(AWS) / 1900 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 - APAC, EMEA, India |
| 4G bands | 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 29, 30 | 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 20, 38, 40 - APAC, EMEA |
| Speed | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE Cat4 150/50 Mbps | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE Cat4 150/50 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| | - | 1, 3, 5, 40, 41 - India |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2019, June. Released 2019, June | 2019, June 06. Released 2019, June 11 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 152.7 x 71.9 x 9.4 mm (6.01 x 2.83 x 0.37 in) | 146 x 70.6 x 9.3 mm (5.75 x 2.78 x 0.37 in) |
| SIM | Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 156 g (5.50 oz) | 153 g (5.40 oz) |
| Display |
|---|
| Resolution | 720 x 1440 pixels, 18:9 ratio (~295 ppi density) | 720 x 1520 pixels, 19:9 ratio (~295 ppi density) |
| Size | 5.45 inches, 76.7 cm2 (~69.8% screen-to-body ratio) | 5.71 inches, 81.4 cm2 (~79.0% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD | IPS LCD |
| | - | Always-on display |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Quad-core 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 | Quad-core 2.0 GHz Cortex-A53 |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SDM429 Snapdragon 429 (12 nm) | Mediatek MT6761 Helio A22 (12 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 504 | PowerVR GE8320 |
| OS | Android 9.0 (Pie) | Android 9.0 (Pie), upgradable to Android 11, Android One |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 32GB 2GB RAM | 16GB 2GB RAM, 32GB 3GB RAM |
| | eMMC 5.1 | eMMC 5.1 |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, AF | 13 MP, f/2.2, 1/3.1", 1.12µm, AF |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | - |
| Single | 5 MP, f/2.2 | 5 MP |
| Video | 720p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 4.2, A2DP, LE |
| NFC | No | No |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, BDS |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0 | microUSB 2.0, OTG |
| WLAN | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n | Wi-Fi 802.11 b/g/n |
| Features |
|---|
| Sensors | Accelerometer, gyro, proximity | Accelerometer, proximity |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 10W wired | 10W wired |
| Type | Li-Ion 2990 mAh, non-removable | Li-Ion 3000 mAh, removable |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | White | Steel, Tungsten Black |
| Models | TA-1140 | TA-1183, TA-1179, TA-1191, TA-1188 |
| Price | - | About 100 EUR |
| SAR | 1.11 W/kg (head) 0.81 W/kg (body) | 0.43 W/kg (head) 1.37 W/kg (body) |
| SAR EU | - | 0.45 W/kg (head) 1.61 W/kg (body) |
Nokia 3.1 C
- Slightly smoother performance due to Snapdragon 429
- Potentially better image processing
- More refined software experience
- May be slightly more expensive
- Limited availability in some regions
Nokia 2.2
- Potentially lower price point
- Higher CPU clock speed (on paper)
- Wider availability in certain markets
- Less responsive user interface
- Inferior GPU performance
- Potentially slower app loading times
Display Comparison
Neither device boasts a standout display. Both are likely utilizing LCD panels, typical for this price point. The focus here isn't on visual fidelity, but rather on basic usability. Without specific display specs, it's reasonable to assume similar resolutions and brightness levels. The real difference lies in the processing power driving the UI, impacting perceived smoothness of animations and scrolling.
Camera Comparison
Camera performance on both devices is expected to be basic. Without detailed sensor information, it’s safe to assume both phones feature low-resolution primary sensors. Focusing on the chipset’s image signal processor (ISP), Qualcomm’s ISP in the Snapdragon 429 likely offers slightly better image processing capabilities than the MediaTek Helio A22’s ISP, potentially resulting in marginally better image quality in good lighting conditions. Any secondary cameras (depth or macro) are unlikely to offer significant value on either device.
Performance
The core distinction between these phones is the chipset. The Nokia 3.1 C’s Qualcomm Snapdragon 429, built on a 12nm process, features a quad-core 1.8 GHz Cortex-A53 CPU. The Nokia 2.2 utilizes the MediaTek Helio A22, also on a 12nm process, but with a slightly higher clocked quad-core 2.0 GHz Cortex-A53 CPU. While the A22’s higher clock speed *suggests* better performance, the Snapdragon 429’s architecture and Qualcomm’s optimizations generally translate to a more fluid experience in real-world usage. The Snapdragon’s GPU is also likely to offer a slight advantage in graphics performance, though neither phone is designed for demanding games. The 12nm fabrication process on both chips is a positive, indicating reasonable power efficiency for their class.
Battery Life
Both the Nokia 3.1 C and Nokia 2.2 support 10W wired charging. Battery capacity isn’t specified, but given their target market, both are likely to house batteries in the 3000-4000 mAh range. The slightly more efficient Snapdragon 429 in the 3.1 C *could* translate to marginally longer battery life, but the difference is unlikely to be substantial. Charging times will be similar – expect several hours to reach a full charge from empty.
Buying Guide
Buy the Nokia 3.1 C if you need a phone that can handle basic multitasking without significant slowdowns, and you value a slightly more responsive user experience. Buy the Nokia 2.2 if your primary needs are limited to calls, texts, and very light app usage, and you prioritize potentially lower cost or availability in specific markets. Both are entry-level devices, but the 3.1 C offers a small performance edge.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Nokia 3.1 C handle popular social media apps like Facebook and WhatsApp smoothly?
Yes, the Snapdragon 429 in the Nokia 3.1 C is generally capable of running social media apps like Facebook and WhatsApp without significant lag. While it won’t offer a blazing-fast experience, it should provide a usable and responsive experience for these common tasks.
❓ Is the Nokia 2.2 suitable for playing mobile games?
The Nokia 2.2 is not ideal for gaming. The Helio A22’s GPU is relatively weak, and you’ll likely experience low frame rates and stuttering in most modern mobile games. It’s best suited for very casual gaming or older, less demanding titles.
❓ Does either phone support fast charging?
No, both the Nokia 3.1 C and Nokia 2.2 only support 10W wired charging. This means charging from 0% to 100% will take several hours.
❓ Which phone is likely to receive more software updates?
Both phones are part of Nokia’s Android One program, guaranteeing at least two years of Android version updates and three years of security patches. However, given the age of these devices, update support may be nearing its end.
