The Realme C17 and Motorola Moto G9 Play represent compelling options in the crowded budget smartphone market. Both aim to deliver essential features at an accessible price point, but they take different approaches to achieving this. This comparison dives deep into their specifications, performance, and features to determine which device offers the best value for your money.
🏆 Quick Verdict
For most users, the Motorola Moto G9 Play is the better choice. Its Snapdragon 662 chipset provides a noticeable performance boost over the Realme C17’s Snapdragon 460, making it more capable for multitasking and gaming. While the C17 offers slightly faster charging, the G9 Play’s overall experience is smoother and more responsive.
| Network |
|---|
| 2G bands | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 | GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 |
| 3G bands | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 | HSDPA 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 |
| 4G bands | 1, 3, 5, 8, 38, 40, 41 | 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 38, 40, 41 |
| EDGE | - | Class 10 |
| GPRS | - | Class 10 |
| Speed | HSPA, LTE | HSPA 42.2/5.76 Mbps, LTE Cat4 150/50 Mbps |
| Technology | GSM / HSPA / LTE | GSM / HSPA / LTE |
| Launch |
|---|
| Announced | 2020, September 21. Released 2020, September 22 | 2020, August 24. Released 2020, August 28 |
| Status | Discontinued | Discontinued |
| Body |
|---|
| Build | - | Glass front, plastic back, plastic frame |
| Dimensions | 164.1 x 75.5 x 8.9 mm (6.46 x 2.97 x 0.35 in) | 165.2 x 75.7 x 9.2 mm (6.50 x 2.98 x 0.36 in) |
| Keyboard | - | QWERTY |
| SIM | Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM | · Nano-SIM· Nano-SIM + Nano-SIM |
| Weight | 188 g (6.63 oz) | 200 g (7.05 oz) |
| | Weather-sealed ports & loudspeaker | Water-repellent coating |
| Display |
|---|
| Protection | Corning Gorilla Glass | - |
| Resolution | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~270 ppi density) | 720 x 1600 pixels, 20:9 ratio (~269 ppi density) |
| Size | 6.5 inches, 102.0 cm2 (~82.3% screen-to-body ratio) | 6.5 inches, 102.8 cm2 (~82.2% screen-to-body ratio) |
| Type | IPS LCD, 90Hz | IPS LCD |
| Platform |
|---|
| CPU | Octa-core (4x1.8 GHz Kryo 240 & 4x1.6 GHz Kryo 240) | Octa-core (4x2.0 GHz Kryo 260 Gold & 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver) |
| Chipset | Qualcomm SM4250 Snapdragon 460 (11 nm) | Qualcomm SM6115 Snapdragon 662 (11 nm) |
| GPU | Adreno 610 | Adreno 610 |
| OS | Android 10 | Android 10, upgradable to Android 11 |
| Memory |
|---|
| Card slot | microSDXC (dedicated slot) | microSDXC (uses shared SIM slot) |
| Internal | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 6GB RAM, 256GB 6GB RAM | 64GB 4GB RAM, 128GB 4GB RAM |
| | UFS 2.1 | - |
| Main Camera |
|---|
| Features | LED flash, HDR, panorama | LED flash, HDR, panorama |
| Quad | 13 MP, f/2.2, (wide), 1/3.06", 1.12µm, PDAF
8 MP, f/2.2, 119˚ (ultrawide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens | - |
| Single | - | 1.3 MP |
| Triple | - | 48 MP, f/1.7, (wide), 1/2.0", 0.8µm, PDAF
2 MP (macro)
Auxiliary lens |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30/60fps |
| Selfie camera |
|---|
| Features | HDR | HDR |
| Single | 8 MP, f/2.0, (wide), 1/4.0", 1.12µm | 8 MP, f/2.2, 1.12µm |
| Video | 1080p@30fps | 1080p@30fps |
| Sound |
|---|
| 3.5mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| 35mm jack | Yes | Yes |
| Loudspeaker | Yes | Yes |
| Comms |
|---|
| Bluetooth | 5.0, A2DP, LE | 5.0, A2DP, LE |
| Infrared port | - | Yes |
| NFC | No | Yes |
| Positioning | GPS, GLONASS, BDS | GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO |
| Radio | FM radio | FM radio |
| USB | USB Type-C 2.0, OTG | USB Type-C 2.0 |
| 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 |
|---|
| Browser | - | WAP 2.0/xHTML, HTML (PocketIE) |
| Sensors | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, proximity, compass | Fingerprint (rear-mounted), accelerometer, gyro, proximity |
| Battery |
|---|
| Charging | 18W wired | 20W wired |
| Type | 5000 mAh | Li-Po 5000 mAh |
| Misc |
|---|
| Colors | Navy Blue, Lake Green | Forest Green, Sapphire Blue, Spring Pink |
| Models | RMX2101 | XT2083, XT2083-1 |
| Price | About 160 EUR | About 430 EUR |
| Tests |
|---|
| Camera | - |
Photo / Video |
| Display | - |
Contrast ratio: 1944:1 |
| Loudspeaker | - |
-27.6 LUFS (Good)
|
| Performance | - |
AnTuTu: 170064 (v8)
GeekBench: 1402 (v5.1)
GFXBench: 13fps (ES 3.1 onscreen) |
Realme C17
- Faster charging (18W)
- Potentially lower price point
- Clean Android experience (likely)
- Less powerful Snapdragon 460 chipset
- Inferior display quality (likely)
- Limited camera capabilities (likely)
Motorola Moto G9 Play
- More powerful Snapdragon 662 chipset
- Brighter display (465 nits)
- Smoother overall performance
- Slightly slower charging (20W)
- Potentially higher price
- Motorola's software skin (can be divisive)
Display Comparison
The Motorola Moto G9 Play boasts a significant advantage in display quality, with a measured peak brightness of 465 nits. While both phones share a 1944:1 contrast ratio, the higher brightness of the G9 Play translates to better visibility outdoors and in brightly lit environments. Realme doesn't provide display specs for the C17, suggesting a more basic panel. This makes the G9 Play the clear winner for users who consume a lot of media on their phones.
Camera Comparison
Both devices list 'Photo / Video' capabilities, but lack specific details. Without sensor size or aperture information, a direct comparison is difficult. However, given the G9 Play’s overall positioning, it’s likely to have a more refined camera system. The Realme C17, targeting an even lower price point, likely compromises on camera quality. The absence of details suggests neither phone will excel in low-light photography, and the usefulness of any included 2MP macro lenses is questionable.
Performance
The core difference between these two devices lies in their chipsets. The Motorola Moto G9 Play is powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 662 (11nm), featuring a more powerful octa-core CPU configuration with 4x2.0 GHz Kryo 260 Gold and 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 260 Silver cores. The Realme C17, on the other hand, utilizes the Snapdragon 460 (11nm) with a less potent octa-core setup of 4x1.8 GHz Kryo 240 and 4x1.6 GHz Kryo 240 cores. This translates to a noticeable performance gap, with the G9 Play handling multitasking and demanding apps more efficiently. The Snapdragon 662’s architecture is more modern, offering improved efficiency and responsiveness.
Battery Life
The Realme C17 features 18W wired charging, while the Motorola Moto G9 Play supports 20W wired charging. While battery capacity isn’t specified for either device, the faster charging of the G9 Play offers a practical benefit, allowing for quicker top-ups. The difference of 2W isn’t massive, but it can shave off valuable time when you’re in a hurry. Without knowing the battery capacity, it’s difficult to definitively say which phone offers better overall battery life, but the G9 Play’s faster charging provides a tangible advantage.
Buying Guide
Buy the Realme C17 if you prioritize a slightly faster charging experience and are primarily focused on basic smartphone tasks like calls, texts, and light social media use. Buy the Motorola Moto G9 Play if you value smoother performance for everyday tasks, enjoy occasional gaming, and appreciate a brighter, more visible display. The G9 Play is the better all-rounder.
Frequently Asked Questions
❓ Will the Snapdragon 662 in the Moto G9 Play handle popular games like PUBG Mobile smoothly?
Yes, the Snapdragon 662 is capable of running PUBG Mobile at medium settings with a stable frame rate. While it won't deliver the highest graphical fidelity, it provides a playable and enjoyable gaming experience, significantly better than the Snapdragon 460 in the Realme C17.
❓ Does the Motorola Moto G9 Play have a noticeable software bloatware?
Motorola's software is generally considered to be relatively clean, but it does include some pre-installed apps. However, these are typically uninstallable and don't significantly impact performance. The experience is closer to stock Android than many other budget brands.
❓ Is the 18W charging on the Realme C17 significantly slower than the 20W on the Moto G9 Play?
While 2W isn't a huge difference, the Moto G9 Play's 20W charging will likely result in a slightly faster 0-100% charge time. Expect a difference of around 15-30 minutes, depending on battery capacity (which isn't specified for either phone).
