Compare Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 vs Panasonic P65 Flash

Feature Comparison

  • The Panasonic P65 Flash's got 5.5 inch Screen Size, while Samsung Galaxy Ace 3's Screen Size is 4 inch
  • The Panasonic P65 Flash has 8GB Internal Storage, which is 50.0% more
  • RAM of Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 is the same as Panasonic P65 Flash
 
Samsung Galaxy Ace 3
Panasonic P65 Flash
Highlight:
All Features
Only Differences
Rank Rank #1Rank #2  
Spec Score 
100 /100
86 /100
  
This score is assigned based on the product's specifications without taking price into consideration.
 
79 Value For Money Score
52 Value For Money Score
  
Display     
Screen Size
4 inch 5.5 inch   
Screen Resolution
800 x 480 pixels 1280 x 720 pixels   
Screen Type
LCD LCD   
Pixel Density
233 PPI 267 PPI   
Screen Protection
- -   
Bezel Less
No No   
Screen Features
- -   
Chipset     
Brand
Broadcom -   
Processor Speed
1GHz 1.3GHz   
Processor
Broadcom 21663 -   
Processor Type
Dual-Core Quad-Core   
RAM
1GB 1GB   
Graphics
Broadcom Videocore IV -   
Camera     
Rear Camera Resolution
5MP 8MP   
Dual Rear Camera
No No   
Front Camera Resolution
1MP 2MP   
Dual Selfie Camera
No No   
Camera Details
Geo-Tagging, Face & Smile Detection Continuous shooting, Panorama, Digital zoom, HDR, Digital image stabilization, ISO settings, Touch focus, Self timer, Geotagging, face detection, White balance settings, Exposure compensation, Scene mode   
Video Recording Resolution
HD Video Recording (720p) HD Video Recording (720p)   
Camera Features
Autofocus, LED Flash Autofocus, LED Flash   
General Specifications     
Operating System
Android Android   
OS Version
Android 4.2 Jelly Bean -   
OS Detail
- Android (5.1)   
OS Upgradable To
- -   
Device Type
Touchscreen Touchscreen   
USB Connector Type
Micro USB Micro USB   
Features
GPS, FM Radio GPS, FM Radio   
Sensors
Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Magnetometer Accelerometer, Proximity Sensor, Ambient Light   
IP Rating
- -   
Dimensions (mm)
121.2 x 62.7 x 9.8 151 x 77.8 x 8.95   
Weight
115 grams 168 grams   
Connectivity
4G LTE (India Compatible), 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth 3G, 2G, WiFi, Bluetooth   
Headphone Jack Type
3.5mm 3.5mm   
Color
- Silver   
Build Material
Plastic -   
Device Warranty
1 Year 1 Year   
Warranty Details
- 1 Year on mobile and 6 month on accessories   
Body SAR
0.45W/kg -   
Head SAR
0.67W/kg -   
In The Box
Device, Earphone, User Manual Device, Charger & Cable Separate, Earphone, User Manual, Warranty Card   
Audio Features
- -   
Storage     
Internal Storage
4GB 8GB   
Approx. User Available Storage
- -   
Card Slot
Yes Yes   
Maximum Card Slot Capacity
64GB 32GB   
OTG Support
No No   
Communication     
SIM Card Slots
Dual Dual   
Network Type
GSM GSM   
SIM Card Type
Mini (Normal) SIM Micro SIM   
SIM 1 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM 3G, 2G, Micro SIM   
SIM 2 Details
4G, 3G, 2G, Micro SIM 2G, Micro SIM   
Hybrid SIM (microSD + SIM)
No No   
2G Bands
GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 GSM 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz   
3G Bands
HSDPA 900 / 2100 - S7270, S7272 HSDPA 850 / 900 / 2100 - S7275 UMTS 900 / 2100 MHz   
4G Bands
LTE band 3(1800), 7(2600), 8(900), 20(800) -   
Battery     
Battery Capacity
1500mAh 2910mAh   
Battery Type
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) Lithium-ion (Li-ion)   
Removable Battery
Yes Yes   
Wireless Charging
No No   
Fast Charging
No No   

Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 vs Panasonic P65 Flash Specs

Specs
Samsung Galaxy Ace 3Panasonic P65 Flash  
Screen Size 4 inch5.5 inch  
Rear Camera Resolution 5MP8MP  
RAM 1GB1GB  
Battery Capacity 1500mAh2910mAh  
Front Camera Resolution 1MP2MP  

Talk about this comparison, ask your questions!

This page helps you compare Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 with Panasonic P65 Flash. When you see Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 Vs Panasonic P65 Flash 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 Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 stands against Panasonic P65 Flash and which one you should buy. The lowest price for Panasonic P65 Flash is Rs. 6,999. The prices for both these products were updated December 11, 2017.
Report an error on this page