|
54%
Celkon Win 400
₹1,999
(Discontinued)
|
Spice Stellar Mi-520n
₹5,312
(Discontinued)
|
Add to Compare
|
Copy link to bookmark or share with others
Celkon Win 400 vs Spice Stellar Mi-520n
Comparing the Celkon Win 400 vs Spice Stellar Mi-520n across performance, display, camera, battery, storage and user rating to help determine the better smartphone.
Here is the summary of the results:
Performance: Both Celkon Win 400 and Spice Stellar Mi-520n run at the same processing speed of 1.3 GHz.
Display: Spice Stellar Mi-520n offers a screen size of 5 inches, while Celkon Win 400 offers 4 inches, making Spice Stellar Mi-520n the larger display of the two. Spice Stellar Mi-520n features a IPS LCD display compared to Celkon Win 400's TFT, making Spice Stellar Mi-520n the better display of the two.
Rear Camera: Spice Stellar Mi-520n offers a higher rear camera resolution with 8 MP, while Celkon Win 400 offers 5 MP, making Spice Stellar Mi-520n better for rear camera photography.
Front Camera: Spice Stellar Mi-520n offers a higher front camera resolution with 2 MP, while Celkon Win 400 offers 1.3 MP, making Spice Stellar Mi-520n better for front camera photography.
Battery: Spice Stellar Mi-520n offers a higher battery capacity with 2000 mAh, while Celkon Win 400 offers 1500 mAh, making Spice Stellar Mi-520n better for longer battery life.
Storage: Spice Stellar Mi-520n offers higher internal storage with 8 GB, while Celkon Win 400 offers 4 GB, making Spice Stellar Mi-520n the better option for storage.
User Rating: Celkon Win 400 receives a higher user rating of 4, while Spice Stellar Mi-520n has a rating of 3.7.
|
✕
Celkon Win 400
₹1,999
(Discontinued)
|
✕
Spice Stellar Mi-520n
₹5,312
(Discontinued)
|
Add to Compare
|
Summary
Spec Score
|
54%
|
N/A
|
Release Date
|
27 Nov, 2014
|
04 Dec, 2014
|
Performance
|
|
N/A
|
|
Snapdragon 200
|
N/A
|
|
(upto 1.3 GHz)
|
(upto 1.3 GHz)
|
|
512 MB RAM
|
1 GB RAM
|
Display
|
|
N/A
|
|
4.0 inches (10.16 cm)
|
5.0 inches (12.7 cm)
|
|
TFT
|
IPS LCD
|
|
480x800 px
|
720x1280 px (HD)
|
Rear Camera
|
|
N/A
|
|
5 MP
Primary Camera
|
8 MP
Primary Camera
|
Front Camera
|
|
N/A
|
|
1.3 MP
|
2 MP
|
Battery
|
|
N/A
|
|
1500 mAh
|
2000 mAh
|
Storage
|
4 GB
|
8 GB
|
User Ratings
|
4/5
(28 ratings)
|
3.7/5
(227 ratings)
|
Video
|
There are no videos available for the device.
|
|
User Feedback
General
Operating System
|
Windows Phone v8.1
|
Android v4.4 (Kitkat)
|
Performance
Performance Rating
|
Poor
|
N/A
|
Chipset
|
Qualcomm Snapdragon 200 MSM8212
|
N/A
|
Processor
|
Quad core, 1.3 GHz, Cortex A7
|
Quad core, 1.3 GHz
|
Graphics (GPU)
|
Adreno 302
|
N/A
|
RAM
|
512 MB
|
1 GB
|
Display
Display Rating
|
Very Good
|
N/A
|
Display Type
|
TFT
|
IPS LCD
|
Screen Size
|
4.0 inches (10.16 cm)
|
5.0 inches (12.7 cm)
|
Resolution
|
480x800 px
|
720x1280 px (HD)
|
Pixel Density
|
233 ppi
|
294 ppi
|
Screen to Body Ratio (calculated)
|
55.82 %
|
67.37 %
|
Design
Height
|
125.4 mm
|
142 mm
|
Width
|
65 mm
|
72 mm
|
Thickness
|
10.3 mm
|
8.5 mm
|
Weight
|
121 grams
|
N/A
|
Rear Camera
Rear Camera Rating
|
Avg
|
N/A
|
Resolution
|
5 MP
Primary Camera |
8 MP
Primary CameraBack-illuminated sensor BSI |
Flash
|
Yes LED Flash
|
Yes LED Flash
|
Image Resolution
|
2592 x 1944 Pixels
|
3264 x 2448 Pixels
|
Camera Features
|
Digital Zoom
|
Digital Zoom
|
Video Recording
|
1280x720 fps
|
N/A
|
Front Camera
Front Camera Rating
|
Poor
|
N/A
|
Resolution
|
1.3 MP
Primary Camera |
2 MP
Primary Camera |
Battery
Battery Rating
|
Very Good
|
N/A
|
Capacity
|
1500 mAh
|
2000 mAh
|
Battery Type
|
Li-ion
|
Li-ion
|
TalkTime
|
Up to 5 Hours(2G)
|
N/A
|
Storage
Internal Storage
|
4 GB
|
8 GB
|
Expandable Storage
|
Yes Up to 32 GB
|
Yes Up to 32 GB
|
Network & Connectivity
SIM Slot(s)
|
Dual SIM
|
Dual SIM
|
Network Support
|
5G Not Supported
|
5G Not Supported
|
Wi-Fi
|
Yes Wi-Fi 4 (802.11 b/g/n)
|
Yes Wi-Fi 4 (802.11 b/g/n)
|
Bluetooth
|
Yes v4.0
|
Yes v4.0
|
GPS
|
Yes with A-GPS
|
Yes
|
Multimedia
Audio Jack
|
3.5 mm
|
3.5 mm
|
Sensors
Other Sensors
|
Light sensor Proximity sensor Accelerometer
|
N/A
|