Compare Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo vs LYF Flame 5

Feature Comparison

  • Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo has 27.0% more Screen Size
  • The Internal Storage on Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo is 87.0% more
  • Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo's RAM is 83.0% more
 
Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo
LYF Flame 5
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
40 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
86 Value For Money Score
67 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5.5 inch 4 inch   
Screen Resolution
1920 x 1080 pixels 800 x 480 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
401 PPI 233 PPI   
Screen Protection
Corning Gorilla Glass 3 -   
Chipset     
Brand
Qualcomm Spreadtrum   
Processor Speed
1.5GHz 1.5GHz   
Processor
Qualcomm Snapdragon 615 Spreadtrum SC9830A   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
3GB 512MB   
Graphics
Adreno 405 Mali-400 MP2   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 5MP   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 2MP   
Camera Details
Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama -   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) HD Video Recording (720p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), Dual Tone LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 5.1 Lollipop Android 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
- -   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio FM Radio   
Dimensions (mm)
152.9 x 75.6 x 9.9 124.5 x 64 x 10.9   
Weight
189 grams 117 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Audio Jack
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Graphite Grey, Gold, Platinum Black   
Build Material
Metal Unibody Plastic   
Device Warranty
1 Year 2 Years   
Warranty Details
- 1 Year standard + 1 Year additional on registering with LYFCare App   
Storage     
Internal Storage
32GB 4GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
23.87GB -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
128GB 32GB   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Nano SIM Mini (Normal) SIM, Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM -   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM -   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
5000mAh 1650mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-Polymer (Li-Po) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
No Yes   
Wireless Charging
No -   
Fast Charging
Yes -   

Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo vs LYF Flame 5 Specs

Specs
Lenovo Vibe P1 TurboLYF Flame 5  
Screen Size 5.5 inch4 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP5MP  
RAM 3GB512MB  
Battery Capacity 5000mAh1650mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP2MP  

LYF Flame 5 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • In-built VoLTE support thanks to Reliance brand
  • 720p HD video recording works well and with high clarity
  • Multi-lingual capabilities which attract audiences from across the country for daily use
The Bad
  • Poor battery capacity which is bound to run out in a day of average use or sooner
  • Internal memory is low for a heavy user
  • Front camera is an average 2MP shooter which may not suffice for selfies

Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Sharp display with Gorilla Glass 3 protection
  • Massive 5000mAh battery with fast charging support
  • Metal Unibody design with fingerprint sensor
The Bad
  • Outdated Android version (5.1 Lollipop)
  • Slightly heavy, thanks to the huge battery

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo with LYF Flame 5. When you see Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo Vs LYF Flame 5 comparison on Pricebaba, watch-out for the specifications of these phones and also the VFM score. With Pricebaba’s Value For Money Score, you can know how Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo stands against LYF Flame 5 and which one you should buy. The best price of Lenovo Vibe P1 Turbo is currently Rs. 9,750. The prices for both these products were updated August 19, 2017.
 
Report an error on this page