XOLO Win Q900S
₹5,900
(Discontinued)
|
52%
Karbonn Titanium Wind W4
₹3,300
(Discontinued)
|
Add to Compare
|
Copy link to bookmark or share with others
XOLO Win Q900S vs Karbonn Titanium Wind W4
Comparing the XOLO Win Q900S vs Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 across performance, display, camera, battery, storage and user rating to help determine the better smartphone.
Here is the summary of the results:
Performance: Both XOLO Win Q900S and Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 run at the same processing speed of 1.2 GHz.
Display: XOLO Win Q900S offers a screen size of 4.7 inches, while Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 offers 4 inches, making XOLO Win Q900S the larger display of the two. XOLO Win Q900S features a IPS LCD display compared to Karbonn Titanium Wind W4's LCD, making XOLO Win Q900S the better display of the two.
Rear Camera: XOLO Win Q900S offers a higher rear camera resolution with 8 MP, while Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 offers 5 MP, making XOLO Win Q900S better for rear camera photography.
Front Camera: XOLO Win Q900S offers a higher front camera resolution with 2 MP, while Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 offers 0.3 MP, making XOLO Win Q900S better for front camera photography.
Battery: Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 offers a higher battery capacity with 1950 mAh, while XOLO Win Q900S offers 1800 mAh, making Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 better for longer battery life.
Storage: XOLO Win Q900S offers higher internal storage with 8 GB, while Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 offers 4 GB, making XOLO Win Q900S the better option for storage.
User Rating: Karbonn Titanium Wind W4 receives a higher user rating of 3.9, while XOLO Win Q900S has a rating of 3.3.
|
✕
XOLO Win Q900S
₹5,900
(Discontinued)
|
✕
Karbonn Titanium Wind W4
₹3,300
(Discontinued)
|
Add to Compare
|
Summary
Spec Score
|
N/A
|
52%
|
Release Date
|
28 Jun, 2014
|
25 Sep, 2014
|
Performance
|
N/A
|
|
|
Snapdragon 200
|
Snapdragon 200
|
|
(upto 1.2 GHz)
|
(upto 1.2 GHz)
|
|
1 GB RAM
|
512 MB RAM
|
Display
|
N/A
|
|
|
4.7 inches (11.94 cm)
|
4.0 inches (10.16 cm)
|
|
IPS LCD
|
LCD
|
|
720x1280 px (HD)
|
480x800 px
|
Rear Camera
|
N/A
|
|
|
8 MP
Primary Camera
|
5 MP
Primary Camera
|
Front Camera
|
2 MP
|
0.3 MP
|
Battery
|
N/A
|
|
|
1800 mAh
|
1950 mAh
|
Storage
|
8 GB
|
4 GB
|
User Ratings
|
3.3/5
(149 ratings)
|
3.9/5
(101 ratings)
|
User Feedback
General
Operating System
|
Windows Phone v8.1
|
Windows v8.1
|
Performance
Performance Rating
|
N/A
|
Poor
|
Chipset
|
Qualcomm Snapdragon 200 MSM8212
|
Qualcomm Snapdragon 200 MSM8210
|
Processor
|
Quad core, 1.2 GHz, ARM Cortex A7
|
Quad core, 1.2 GHz, ARM Cortex A7
|
Graphics (GPU)
|
Adreno 302
|
Adreno 302
|
RAM
|
1 GB
|
512 MB
|
Display
Display Rating
|
N/A
|
Very Good
|
Display Type
|
IPS LCD
|
LCD
|
Screen Size
|
4.7 inches (11.94 cm)
|
4.0 inches (10.16 cm)
|
Resolution
|
720x1280 px (HD)
|
480x800 px
|
Pixel Density
|
312 ppi
|
233 ppi
|
Screen to Body Ratio (calculated)
|
66.69 %
|
56.61 %
|
Screen Protection
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Design
Height
|
135.8 mm
|
125 mm
|
Width
|
67.2 mm
|
64.3 mm
|
Thickness
|
7.2 mm
|
10.9 mm
|
Weight
|
100 grams
|
N/A
|
Rear Camera
Rear Camera Rating
|
N/A
|
Below Avg
|
Resolution
|
8 MP
Primary Camera |
5 MP
Primary Camera |
Autofocus
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Flash
|
Yes LED Flash
|
Yes LED Flash
|
Image Resolution
|
3264 x 2448 Pixels
|
2592 x 1944 Pixels
|
Camera Features
|
Digital Zoom
|
Digital Zoom
|
Front Camera
Resolution
|
2 MP
Primary Camera |
0.3 MP
Primary Camera |
Battery
Battery Rating
|
N/A
|
Very Good
|
Capacity
|
1800 mAh
|
1950 mAh
|
Battery Type
|
Li-Polymer
|
Li-ion
|
TalkTime
|
Up to 14 Hours(3G) / Up to 23 Hours(2G)
|
Up to 8 Hours(2G)
|
Storage
Internal Storage
|
8 GB
|
4 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
|
Yes
|
GPS
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Multimedia
Audio Jack
|
3.5 mm
|
3.5 mm
|
Sensors
Other Sensors
|
Light sensor Proximity sensor Accelerometer
|
Light sensor Proximity sensor Accelerometer
|