Nokia E52 vs Samsung i320

Key differences

Calculated from recorded specifications using minimum difference thresholds. These are differences, not an overall ranking. For three phones, numeric highlights compare the two extremes.

• WidthE52: 10 mm narrowerE52: 49 mm · i320: 59 mm
• Screen diagonali320: 0.2 in smaller diagonali320: 2.2 in · E52: 2.4 in
• DepthE52: 1.6 mm thinnerE52: 9.9 mm · i320: 11.5 mm
• Heighti320: 5 mm shorteri320: 111 mm · E52: 116 mm
• Release year2009 / 2006E52: 2009 · i320: 2006

Relative size, not calibrated actual size. Front and side outlines share one scale and a bottom baseline. Generic outlines use recorded body dimensions, excluding camera bumps.

1. 1. E52

   Height

   116 mm+5 mm versus i320

   Width

   49 mm

   Depth

   9.9 mm

   Weight

   98 g

2. 2. i320

   Height

   111 mm

   Width

   59 mm+10 mm versus E52

   Depth

   11.5 mm+1.6 mm versus E52

   Weight

   95 g

Screen size

Approximate rectangular screens calculated from recorded diagonal and aspect ratio at one relative scale. Rounded corners and cutouts are not subtracted. These are not phone outlines or calibrated actual sizes.

1. 1. E52 2.4 in · 4:3 About 17.8 cm² rectangular area
2. 2. i320 2.2 in · 4:3 About 15 cm² rectangular area

E52 has approximately 19% more rectangular screen area than i320.

Memory variants

Each row compares the same storage capacity. Cells show recorded RAM alternatives, not combined maxima. Not recorded does not mean unavailable in every market.

No unambiguous storage/RAM pairings are recorded. See the original specifications below.

Practical features

Explicit Yes and No values are shown directly. Qualified or regional records retain their details. Unknown means the record is missing.

Battery capacity

Capacity is not battery life. No endurance test is implied.

Open a section for more detail. On narrow screens, swipe sideways or use Left/Right arrow keys while the table is focused. Unknown means missing data, not No. Recorded zero values are shown as recorded.