Compare Karbonn Titanium Octane vs Oppo F1

Feature Comparison

  • Screen Size of Karbonn Titanium Octane is the same as Oppo F1
  • Internal Storage of Karbonn Titanium Octane is the same as Oppo F1
  • Oppo F1 has 3GB RAM, whereas Karbonn Titanium Octane has 1GB RAM
 
Karbonn Titanium Octane
Oppo F1
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #2Rank #1  
Spec Score 
38 /100
100 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
52 Value For Money Score
68 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
5 inch 5 inch   
Screen Resolution
1280 x 720 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
293.7 PPI 294 PPI   
Screen Protection
- Corning Gorilla Glass 4   
Bezel Less
- No   
Screen Features
- 2.5D Curved Glass   
Chipset     
Brand
MediaTek Qualcomm   
Processor Speed
1.7GHz 1.7GHz   
Processor
MediaTek MT6592 Qualcomm Snapdragon 616   
Processor Type
Octa-Core Octa-Core   
RAM
1GB 3GB   
Graphics
Mali-450 MP4 Adreno 405   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
13MP 13MP   
Dual Rear Camera
- No   
Front Camera Resolution
5MP 8MP   
Dual Selfie Camera
- No   
Camera Details
- Geo-tagging, Touch Focus, Face Detection, HDR, Panorama, Continuous shooting, Digital zoom, Digital image stabilization, HDR, White balance settings, ISO settings, Exposure compensation. self timer, Scene mode   
Video Recording Resolution
Full HD Video Recording (1080p) Full HD Video Recording (1080p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, Phase Detection Autofocus (PDAF), LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
- Android 5.1 Lollipop   
OS Detail
Android (4.4) ColorOS 2.1   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Sensors
- Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Magnetometer, Ambient Light   
IP Rating
- -   
Dimensions (mm)
145.7 × 71.2 × 7.9 143.50 x 71 x 7.25   
Weight
- 134 grams   
Connectivity
3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth, VoLTE (Works with Jio)   
Headphone Jack Type
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
Black, White Gold, Rose Gold   
Build Material
- Metal   
Device Warranty
- 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- -   
Body SAR
- 0.687W/kg   
Head SAR
- 0.16W/kg   
In The Box
- Device, Charger, Earphone, SIM Ejector Tool, User Manual, Cover   
Audio Features
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
16GB 16GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
32GB 128GB   
OTG Support
- Yes   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Mini (Normal) SIM Micro SIM, Nano SIM   
SIM 1 Details
- 4G, 3G, 2G, Nano SIM   
SIM 2 Details
- Nano SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
- Yes   
2G Bands
- GSM 1800 / 1900 / 850 / 900 MHz   
3G Bands
- UMTS 2100 MHz   
4G Bands
- TD-LTE 2300(band 40) FD-LTE 2100(band 1) / 1800(band 3)   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
2000mAh 2500mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes No   
Wireless Charging
- No   
Fast Charging
- No   

Karbonn Titanium Octane vs Oppo F1 Specs

Specs
Karbonn Titanium OctaneOppo F1  
Screen Size 5 inch5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 13MP13MP  
RAM 1GB3GB  
Battery Capacity 2000mAh2500mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 5MP8MP  

Oppo F1 Pros & Cons

The Good
  • Selfie camera is quite good, if you click a lot of selfies
  • Metal Body Construction, Great Build
The Bad
  • No NFC Support
  • Smaller battery may be a problem for power users

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Karbonn Titanium Octane with Oppo F1. When you see Karbonn Titanium Octane Vs Oppo F1 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 Karbonn Titanium Octane stands against Oppo F1 and which one you should buy. The lowest price for Oppo F1 is Rs. 14,550. The prices for both these products were updated December 14, 2017.
Report an error on this page