Nokia has had a lot of success with Windows Phone in the more budget-oriented segment of the market. The Lumia 630, which we recently reviewed, does well in its position in the $150-200 device bracket. But Nokia is hoping to target buyers at even lower price points with the new Lumia 530 which positions itself to take on other Android devices at the $100-150 segment of the market. At least in its name it is a successor to Nokia's Lumia 520 which was the most popular Windows Phone, and the two are compared down below.

Lumia 520 and 530
  Lumia 520 Lumia 530
SoC 1GHz Dual Core Krait (MSM8227) + Adreno 305 1.2GHz Quad Core Cortex A7 (MSM8212) + Adreno 302
Memory 512MB LPDDR2 512MB LPDDR2
Storage 8GB NAND + MicroSDHC 4GB NAND + MicroSDXC 
Display 4” 800x480 WVGA LCD 4” 854x480 FWVGA LCD
Cellular Connectivity GPRS/EDGE/HSPA+ GPRS/EDGE/HSPA+
Dimensions 119.9 x 64 x 9.9 mm, 124g 119.7 x 62.3 x 11.7 mm, 129g
Camera 5MP Rear Facing w/ F2.4 aperture 5MP Rear Facing w/ F2.4 aperture
Battery 5.291Wh 5.291Wh
OS Windows Phone 8.1 Windows Phone 8.1
Other Connectivity 802.11b/g/n + BT 4.0, USB2.0, GPS/GNSS 802.11b/g/n + BT 4.0, USB2.0, GPS/GNSS
SIM Size Micro-SIM Micro-SIM (dual SIM variant)

As you can see, the Lumia 530 has many similarities to its predecessor. Inside it makes the move from Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 platform to the newer Snapdragon 200 platform. It'll be interesting to see how the quad core 1.2GHz Cortex A7 implementation fares against the 1GHz dual core Krait implementation. The GPU takes a performance hit, going from the Adreno 305 to the 302. Storage similarly takes a small step down with half the internal NAND of the Lumia 520, but with support for MicroSDXC up to 128GB rather than 64GB in the 520. RAM and connectivity remains the same with 512MB of LPDDR2 memory, single stream 802.11n WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0, and 21.1Mbps HSPA+. The battery chemistry remains the same as well at 1430mAh and 3.7V.

The front of the device sports an 854x480 LCD display, with the extra 54 pixels compared to the Lumia 520 being used for the on-screen buttons in a similar fashion to the Lumia 630. The move from a 15:9 display aspect ratio to a 16:9 ratio allows for a small decrease in the width of the device. The 530 has an appreciable increase in thickness compared to its predecessor with a thickness of 11.7mm at its thickest point compared to 9.9mm on the 520. No apparent changes to the camera have been made with a 5MP F2.4 sensor on the back and there's no front-facing camera.

The 530 seems like a mixed bag of upgrades and downgrades compared to the 520. At 4GB of storage it really necessitates buying a MicroSD card even for users who rarely use apps, while the 8GB in the 520 leaves more breathing room. The increase in thickness is also disappointing but in the 530's price bracket there's no pressure to battle it out for the title of thinnest smartphone. In many ways it feels less like an upgrade and more like a device of its own. It will be interesting to see how users feel it compares to the original Lumia 520.

The Lumia 530 will be launching in single and dual-sim variants in August with a target price point of €85. Ignoring differences in taxes and market situations that translates to rougly $114 in the US or £67 in the UK. 

Source: Nokia Conversations

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Alexey291 - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Holy crap its like the same phone... but worse
  • Drumsticks - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Blargh... I dunno. This is not too impressive. And why with the 512MB of RAM... I know it's the most budget-conscious of phones, but shouldn't it be possible to fit 1GB in?

    Also, heavier, less storage, less graphics, same camera, basically same display, and a (maybe) arguably better CPU. >.<
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Looking at the specs on this, it should've been called the 430. The 630 should've been the 530, and a new $200-250 design should have been given the 630 moniker.
  • The_Assimilator - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Why a quad-core in the lowest of low-end phones? Rather double the internal storage and RAM.
  • kyuu - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    You're assuming that they could've saved any money on the BOM by going to a dual-core solution, which likely isn't the case.
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    No idea what the cost difference is, but the snapdragon family does include two dual core a7 parts.
  • ViRGE - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    Because the Asian markets are all about quad cores. It's what sells, even if it's not logical.
  • Roland00Address - Thursday, July 24, 2014 - link

    What you say is logical and a smarter decision from a balance standpoint, you are not going to use 4 cores with a 512 mb design.

    Yet it barely cost more to buy a quad core soc vs a dual core soc due to how small a7s are. Arm says a single a7 core on 28nm without cache is half a square mm. So we are talking roughly 1 square mm for the two additional cores. There may be some additional die size due to cache but I do not know the cache amounts.

    Yet marketing four cores instead of two sell devices, especially in Asia thus it makes sense to pay the trivial amount more for a quad core. Especially if you can negotiate the price difference down due to volume.
  • Krysto - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    It's Windows Phone so who cares?
  • JeffFlanagan - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    People who like Windows Phone, but can't afford a decent one. I'd think that would be obvious even to someone who's a little slow.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now