Vernee Thor Plus smartphone, or what happens when you cross the Thor and Thor-E and add AMOLED

I've already reviewed the two previous models in Vernee's Thor lineup. But when the long-lasting Thor E was announced, an alternative model was announced alongside it: the Thor Plus. It's essentially similar to the first model, but has a higher-capacity battery and an AMOLED display.
Since I'd reviewed the first two models, it was hard to pass this one up, so I ended up ordering it too.


I've written many times that modern smartphones are like construction kits: manufacturers take individual components—cameras, displays, memory, processors, batteries—and build their own version. Since there's a wide range of components to choose from, we end up with a large number of different models.
This is essentially the same story. After releasing the Vernee Thor about a year and a half ago—a phone I've been able to follow all this time—the manufacturer put the lineup on hold for a while. But about a year later, the series continued with the Thor E, which had a higher-capacity battery, a compass (later removed in some firmware versions), a “fast” charger (announced back when the first version came out), and E-ink mode (essentially, a black-and-white display).
At the same time, the Thor Plus was announced. I was much more interested in it than in the Thor E, mainly because of its AMOLED display. But it turned out to have more differences than that, and some of them were for the worse. So today I'll take a look at the new version and how it differs.

Specifications
Color: Black, Gold
Processor: MTK6753, 8 cores
GPU: ARM Mali-T720 MP3, 450 MHz
Operating system: Android 7.0
Memory: 3 GB RAM, 32 GB flash storage.
Display: 5.5-inch Super AMOLED, 1280 x 720 resolution, E-ink function
Network type: GSM+WCDMA+FDD-LTE
2G: GSM 850/900/1800/1900 MHz
3G: WCDMA 900/2100 MHz
4G: FDD-LTE 800/1800/2100/2600 MHz
Wireless interfaces: Wi-Fi 802.11b/g/n (2.4 and 5 GHz), Bluetooth 4.0
GPSA / GPS
Memory card slot: MicroSD, supports up to 128 GB.
Audio output/microphone: 3.5 mm jack.
SIM cards: 2 nano-SIMs
Front camera: 8 MP
Main camera: 13 MP (f/2.0)
Battery: 6200 mAh
Dimensions: 153 x 76.7 x 8.7 mm
Weight: 191 g

Like both previous models, the new phone is built around the rather old MTK6753. On the one hand, you could count that as a drawback; on the other, it has enough performance for most tasks. I think the manufacturer simply decided to release an updated model with minimal effort—or, as they like to say these days, give it a facelift.
There are some useful changes, too. Along with the updated display, the flash storage capacity has doubled from 16 to 32 GB. The battery capacity has also increased: 6200 mAh versus 5060 mAh in the Thor E. The other changes are mostly cosmetic.

The phone comes in the same white box as the previous version. It's made of thick cardboard and is hard to damage. The phone was lying face up, but since the package had clearly been opened by customs, I can't say for sure whether that's how it was packed originally.
The accessories aren't secured inside the box at all, which is more of a drawback.


The package contents are pretty basic:
1. Vernee Thor Plus smartphone
2. Power adapter (charger)
3. USB-to-MicroUSB cable
4. Manual
5. SIM tray ejector pin

There are no case, headphones, or screen protectors included.



A few notes on the accessories.
1. The manual and a sheet with information about an update (?).
2. The manual has a section in Russian.
3. The charger is the same as the one supplied with the Thor E.
4. Output voltage: 5, 7, or 9 V at up to 2 A, or 12 V at up to 1.5 A.
5. The cable is completely ordinary—no illuminated connectors like the Coolpad's, or USB Type-C like some newer phones. Just plain MicroUSB.
6. SIM tray ejector pin.



I received the black version, which looks quite similar to the previous model. There are two films on the screen: a main one and a shipping film.


There's also a protective film on the back. You can leave the front shipping film on for a while since it's transparent, but there's no point keeping the one on the back; it'll peel off on its own eventually :)
The film labels the ports and buttons, which is quite handy.


Design. Well, what can I say? Probably the most common design these days: a black slab. Yes, in black it looks quite plain, though there's beauty in simplicity too. In that respect, it's similar to the first two versions, but its shape is closer to a slightly larger Thor E, since the original Thor was shaped like a bar of soap.


Controls and connectors
1. There are three physical buttons on the bottom; the middle button is combined with the fingerprint sensor. Touch button, no additional mechanical button. The buttons are not backlit.
2. On top are a three-color notification LED, proximity sensor, earpiece and front-facing camera. There is no flash.
3. The right side has the power button and volume rocker.
4. The left side has a power-saving mode button, as well as a slot for a memory card and SIM cards
5. The bottom edge has openings for the main speaker and a microUSB port. The speaker is on the left. Sound quality is on par with most ordinary smartphones: there are highs and mids, but almost no bass.
6. The headset jack is conventionally located on top.




The back cover is aluminum with a black, slightly rough finish, just as the description claimed.


There are plastic inserts at the top and bottom, presumably where the antennas are installed. It looks very neat, and I’m glad it isn’t glossy, although it still attracts greasy fingerprints.
On the other hand, the body will feel icy in cold weather, unlike the plastic version, so it comes down to personal preference.


The main camera, with a claimed resolution of 13 megapixels, is located at the top.
The camera aperture is listed as 2.0, the same as on the first version; the Thor-E had an f/2.4 aperture. I liked the first version’s photo quality, at least for this price range, so I’m hoping this one will be just as good.
What’s really nice is that there’s only one camera. I’m glad the manufacturer didn’t fall for the gimmick of software blur and install two cameras.





The website says the glass is “2.5D Curve glass.” I’m not sure about the “2.5D” part, but the glass is definitely curved. In my opinion, although this kind of glass looks better, it can be difficult to find a screen protector that covers the entire surface.
I also found that it has an oleophobic coating, although the manufacturer’s website doesn’t mention it at all. When you try to rub water droplets around, they eventually bead up and roll off.


I’m not too keen on the side-mounted slot for the memory card and SIM cards. The previous version also had a slot, but at least this one has 32 GB of flash memory instead of 16 GB. The slot is partly there because the back cover is aluminum.
In general, this trend of adding a slot is a bit disappointing to me, and more and more smartphones are doing it. They might as well have made two slots, one for a memory card and one for SIM cards, but as it is...


The phone has clearly gotten heavier. The first version weighed 143 grams, the second 165, and the third 193 grams. You can really feel its weight in your hand; in my opinion, this is clearly a phone for men.


A few photos in natural light



The factory-installed screen protector looks a bit untidy.


In bright light, the power-saving mode looks washed out, even though the brightness is set to maximum.



The key difference between this smartphone and most models in this price range is its display. The manufacturer decided to go all out and installed an AMOLED display. The website does claim it’s Super AMOLED, but since the two are very hard to tell apart by appearance, I can’t confirm the “Super” part.


The viewing angles really are excellent. Colors remain accurate almost until you’re looking parallel to the screen; then the display turns blue and becomes unreadable. But that only happens when you’re viewing it at an extremely shallow angle.


But the biggest difference with this type of screen is that it has no backlight bleed. LCD screens have a backlight that stays on regardless of what’s currently displayed. As a result, a black background often ends up looking gray.
AMOLED panels work differently: each pixel is an LED, so only the pixels that need to light up do so, while the others remain off. That makes it very easy to get true black.


This type of panel also offers better color reproduction. At least compared with my old Doogee X5 max, this isn't just night and day—it's like they're on different planets.


A few more comparisons.
There is, however, one small drawback. The viewing angles are good, the colors are beautiful, and the brightness is excellent, but there's a minor quirk. Viewed straight on, perpendicular to the screen, white takes on a slight greenish tint. Move just a little in either direction, and white looks white again.


All right, let's not beat a dead horse by comparing the phone under review with a budget smartphone.
I think it's more appropriate to compare it with a phone in the same price range. And even then, the difference is still clear. The photo shows three phones: Thor Plus, Coolpad Max A8, and Doogee X5 max.


Software

When you turn it on, you're greeted by a fairly familiar home screen, styled exactly like the one on the Thor-E. And I'll say it again: I liked the original Thor's design better.
The app list is also identical to the previous model. I think the two models are exactly the same in this respect.


Interestingly, the phone arrived fully charged at 100%. After a while spent on the initial inspection, it had dropped to 99.
The phone has 3 GB of RAM and 32 GB of flash storage. Apps take up 238 MB, which I'd say is quite economical.
The previous model also had a SIM card slot, but only 16 GB of flash storage. In my opinion, with a hybrid slot that has to accommodate two SIM cards, 32 GB is the minimum—and 64 GB would be better.


The phone runs Android 7.0. An update dated September 1 arrived right away, so all the tests were done after installing it. I remember the previous version being bombarded with constant updates, with the compass removed along the way. I checked for updates again later, but for now the September 1 firmware is still the latest.


Settings
I happened to notice an option in the settings to launch the camera by double-pressing the power button. I tried it, and it's very convenient—the camera launches even when the phone is locked.
Pocket mode disables swipe-to-unlock to prevent accidental activation when carrying the phone in a case or pocket.


There are lots of status bar settings, though most are fine left as they are.
There's just one notification indicator setting: turning the indicator's blinking on or off. Though it doesn't actually blink; it smoothly brightens and dims.


The only setting worth mentioning here is the one shown in the last screenshot: bass boost. Honestly, I don't know what it boosts, but even with the setting enabled, the sound is about the same as on my Doogee X5 max. In short, it sounds like it sounds.


CPU-Z and Aida64.


The phone is a bit shortchanged when it comes to sensors, though. The package is exactly the same as on the first Thor—or rather, there’s no package at all, just the bare essentials.
The orientation sensor seems to have disappeared. It may be a bug in the test software, although CPU-Z reports the same thing. But there’s definitely no magnetometer.
I wouldn’t say it’s particularly useful, but it’s still a little disappointing. Then again, maybe that’s why they “cut” it from the Thor-E: they didn’t want the cheaper model to end up with more sensors than the new one.
The touchscreen supports 5-point multitouch, although I’ve already come across a ten-point screen in a really cheap phone. In any case, I have no complaints about the touchscreen; it works perfectly.


Tests.
Since this phone is mostly identical to its predecessors, I’ll hide this part of the review behind a spoiler too.
AnTuTu, Geekbench, and others


Navigation.
As with the second model, this one also supports GPS and GLONASS, and has AGPS. However, its sensitivity is not very high; the previous models were about 20–30% better.


The lower sensitivity showed up as less accurate positioning, especially while moving. The error was sometimes around 20–30 meters. During the test, the phone was in my jacket's inside pocket, with the screen facing me. The previous models were more accurate.


Wi-Fi works reasonably well on this phone; I'd say it's about average. The 5 GHz band is a little more sensitive. At the greatest distance from the router (12 meters, with concrete walls in between), the access point was visible on both bands, but the phone connected only on 5 GHz.
Below are two tests, at 2.4 and 5 GHz. Both followed the same sequence familiar to my readers:
1. About 11 m away, with reinforced concrete walls in between.
2. About 6 m away, with two interior walls in between.
3. The next room
4. 1.5 m from the router, with a clear line of sight.
The sequence is labeled from left to right below the graphs.


Since the battery capacity is front and center in the advertising, I ran some battery life tests. Besides the fact that the phone easily lasts two or three days, I also tested its runtime in synthetic benchmarks.
In the Geekbench test, with the screen at maximum brightness, the phone lasted nine and a half hours. I wouldn't call that an impressive result. That's only an hour and a half longer than the Thor-E.
The discharge graph is almost the same as on the previous version: it shows 100% for the first 30–40 minutes, then drops linearly to 5%, falls sharply to 3%, and the phone shuts down.
I can't run the minimum-brightness test properly because Geekbench refused to show the result after I enabled it. I did, however, save a screenshot I took during the test.


But when playing the test Full HD video, the difference turned out to be very significant. That's because the difference comes from the AMOLED display, whose power consumption is directly related to the average brightness of what's on screen. With conventional LCDs, power consumption is almost independent of this (unless you count dynamic brightness adjustment).
Almost 15 hours at maximum brightness; the Thor-E lasted only about 9 hours in the same test!

The advertising claimed 20 hours of video playback. I believe it. Set the brightness to a comfortable 50–70%, play a 1280×720 video instead of Full HD, and 20 hours is entirely realistic.


But what kind of review would this be if I didn't take it apart? :)
The case is pretty hard to open. If you decide to do it, start near the microUSB port, and don't forget to remove the SIM card tray.


Basically, it's just a phone like any other; there's nothing fundamentally new here.


The only odd thing is that I found the GSM antenna (at the bottom of the case), but couldn't find the Wi-Fi/GPS antenna. I assume it's somewhere at the top.
The back cover has numerous contact points connecting it to the chassis.


The bottom section is also covered by a panel. You can see the vibration motor, microphone, and speaker.


As before, there's an aluminum chassis.


The smartphone's main board; the battery connector is additionally held down by a plate.


And here's the much-praised 5800 mAh battery.


Wait. What do you mean, 5800 mAh? The advertising prominently says 6200, and even lists it as one of the main differences.
Oh, Vernee, Vernee. I had such high hopes.


Well, my struggles taking it apart were rewarded: now it's clear “who's who.”
I wonder if the manufacturer hoped the phone wouldn't end up with me, or that I wouldn't be able to take it apart?


This time, I tested the battery's actual capacity using a slightly different method.
As before, I first discharged the phone until it shut down automatically, then connected it to an electronic load and set the current I would use for the measurement. I set the discharge current to 1.16 A, which is 0.2C for the 5800 mAh capacity printed on the battery.
I found that the cutoff voltage is about 3.24 V.


After photographing the phone's internals, I connected it to the charger, but for some reason it showed a 16% charge. But for the test, this doesn't really matter, since it's simply an incorrect measurement taken after disconnecting the battery.
After charging it to 100% and making sure charging had actually finished (the charging current had dropped), I connected it to the electronic load.
The battery voltage was 4.344 V.


Let's discharge it at 1.16 A down to 3.24 V to find out the usable capacity.
Then we'll discharge it down to 2.8 V, with an intermediate stop at 3.00 V (just for the record).
The usable capacity is highlighted in green, and the “reserve” in red. Total capacity came to 5615+134+47=5796 mAh, which is quite close to the 5800 mAh printed on the battery and well below the 6200 mAh claimed in the ad.


But what about...


The ad also claims that the phone can be charged to 50% in just 40 minutes.


Well, if that's what they claim, let's test that too.
But here I also ran into “misleading information.” To be fair, right at the start of the test, while I was taking a photo, the phone turned on, so the test wasn't 100% accurate. But even if starting it up and then turning it off used 1% of the charge, the results still don't look quite like what was claimed.
20 minutes - 10%
40 minutes - 24%
60 minutes - 38%
1 hour 20 minutes - 54%
1 hour 40 minutes - 67%
2 hours - 81%
2 hours 20 minutes - 92% (the charging indicator turned green)
2 hours 45 minutes - 100%. The phone is fully charged, and power consumption has dropped almost to zero.


Charging runs at 9.4 V almost the entire time, with a current of 1.35-1.4 A that gradually drops right at the end. The phone switches to 5 V about a minute before charging finishes.
While charging in QC mode, this message appears at the bottom of the display.

The only thing I didn't check was the charging speed while the phone was on. Do you think I should test that?


Yes, it's clearly not what was claimed. Still, this seems to have become a trademark of this manufacturer's smartphones. The previous model showed roughly the same results.
That said, in my opinion, charging a battery this large in under three hours is pretty good too. The ad also claimed an 18 W charging power, though; in reality it's around 12-13 W (9.4 V at 1.4 A).


Cameras.
The photo and video settings aren't anything special, so I don't see a point in listing them.
Video is recorded at 1280x720, with quality to match. Videos are saved in 3gp format.


I also tested and compared the main camera. The comparison was with the same original Thor as before.
I'd say the cameras are roughly equal. I say roughly because the Thor Plus camera takes slightly worse pictures; to my eye, they look grainier. But the phones are a year and a half apart in age, and the first one has seen a year and a half of use, which may also have had some effect.


In any case, the camera here is better than the Thor-E's, though that's just my opinion. Full-resolution photo comparisons are available at the link





Surprisingly, it also takes reasonably good pictures at night.
The image is dark, but it was very dark outside, and the image itself is quite good.


HDR mode helps improve things a little.



Macro photography is clearly not this smartphone's strong suit; the minimum distance to the subject is 6-7 cm.


This is what the full frame looked like.


And of course, a comparison with the first model. You can see the “old-timer” has already been through a lot; it's time to replace the case, since the phone has been dropped and the top part is taped up. But it still works, and its owner hasn't complained so far. By this point in its life, though, the previous Samsung had already had its display and battery replaced.


So, what can I say in conclusion? To start with, here’s what this phone inherited from the previous models.
Processor, RAM, performance - exactly the same as in both previous models.
Flash storage - 32 GB, compared with 16 GB in both previous models.
Display - AMOLED (or Super AMOLED), compared with IPS in both previous models.
Memory card and SIM card slots - Like the Thor-E; the Thor had internal, independent slots.
Battery - higher capacity than the Thor-E and much larger than the Thor's.
Fast charging - Like the Thor-E; it was announced for the Thor, but it never took off.
Sensors - Same as the Thor. The Thor-E also had an orientation sensor and a magnetometer (which was later removed).
Camera - More or less like the first model, and better than the Thor-E.
Fingerprint sensor - on the front; it was on the back in the previous models.
Wi-Fi - 2.4/5 GHz, like the second model; the first only supported 2.4 GHz.

And now, my conclusions.
The genuinely high-quality display is an obvious plus. It also helps save battery power: the phone managed more than 15 hours of video playback, partly thanks to its AMOLED display.
The high-capacity battery is another win. The phone almost works like the bunny in that famous battery commercial.
I didn't mention the fingerprint sensor in the review, but it works great. The phone is also stable overall: nothing freezes, crashes, or slows down.
The platform the phone is built on is certainly outdated, but on the other hand, performance is good enough. Why would you need more?

But it's disappointing that the manufacturer lied about the actual capacity. I suspect the original plan was to use a 6200 mAh battery, but it looks like that didn't work out—or, more precisely, it either wouldn't fit or was too expensive. In reality, the phone has a battery marked 5800 mAh, with a capacity that matches the battery manufacturer's specifications. So the battery itself is fine, but the stated capacity is inaccurate.
More or less the same applies to the advertised charging specs. In this case, though, it may be for the best that they didn't go with 9 V at 2 A; the battery will last longer.

Otherwise, this is essentially a hybrid of the two models—or what you get by combining the first and second versions and adding AMOLED. If you used the Thor and were planning to replace it with the Thor-E, I'd say that, in my personal opinion, the Thor Plus is better. Overall, the phone performed well and was pleasant to use. Just keep it in an inside pocket in winter, so it doesn't freeze to your ear :)


That's all for now. As usual, I'm looking forward to your questions, and I hope you found the review useful.