Fairphone 3 specification speculation & leaks

Just for reference - even FP2 had 802.11ac wifi support (still online at https://shop.fairphone.com/en/):

WLAN IEEE 802.11 b/g/n/ac
WLAN Bands 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz
WLAN Maximum Data Rate Up to 433 Mbps (802.11 ac)

Would be quite odd if the FP3 doesn’t…

1 Like

Any speculation on that side, actually? The camera is one of my biggest pain points with the FP2 (alongside the poor battery life and janky 1/8" jack) and I would love to have an awesome camera in the new phone…

We simply don’t know, but you should consider it isn’t a high-end SoC nor a high-end smartphone. High-end smartphones normally have very good cameras, with multiple lenses and such. Kinda insane, and not modular-friendly, I guess. The previous camera upgrade cycle on the FP2 made sense, but also resulted in a lot of waste (abundance of v1 camera modules). The original v1 camera was terrible, IMO, while the v2 camera is adequate for my standards. I guess these standards are getting higher by time though, and yours appear to be higher than mine, so it might be a dealbreaker for you.


I agree, as a camera is really not important for me. (I have got my DSLR for that.)
Though I guess we can assume, that the FP3 will come with a better camera than the FP2.
One: it’s about two years later now and cameras on smartphones have improved in general.
Two: many users complained about the camera and - judging by advertisements - camera quality has become an ever more important topic for buyers. And I really have the feeling, that FP has been listening to this forum.


Hi everyone,

Wifi certification information is now available: https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-results?sort_by=default&sort_order=desc&keywords=fairphone
I don’t know if this is Wifi 4 or 5.
I note that there is no Miracast support :frowning: this is a disappointment for me.

Regarding USB, unfortunately manufacturers have stopped putting their USB certification info online so we have to wait for Fairphone to give us the details.

Cheers :slight_smile:


WiFi 4 and 5 are marketing terms cause apparently it got too confusing/technical.

Screenshot from page 2/2

802.11ac is WiFi 5. The FP3 has WiFi 5. Also, this test device had Android P.

1 Like

IEEE 802.11ac equals WiFi 5. In my opinion that suffices since there aren’t many WiFi 6 devices available or in use (especially routers). Its advantages for smartphones in general are rather small.

I’m more worried about the chosen CPU cores. I hope there’ll be a collection of out-of-order and in-order cores (like 4 * A72 + 4 * A55) because just eight in-order cores may be too slow for some (heavy) workloads, and power efficiency of slowly clocked out-of-order cores is better than that of highly clocked in-order cores.

1 Like

Product announcement on 27 august confirmed once more as we just all received a newsletter containing the following picture


The production of the Fairphone 1 and 2 started after pre-sale.
Fairphone 3 seems to be already in production, so it can be delivered sooner.


I just found this https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/14173908 benchmark. Is it reliable? CPU ARM v8 64 bit 1.8 GHz and 3.6 GB RAM…

I moved your post here, as the implications of this find were discussed here earlier.


According to that Geekbench entry

ARM implementer 81 architecture 8 variant 10 part 2048 revision 2

may be a Snapdragon 660 according to a quick Duckduckgo search which would be a rather good option performance wise (see posts above). Even its graphics performance is theoretically doubled compard to FP2’s Snapdragon 801 (power and temperature limit have an equal impact though).

Okay, it could be either the 632, 636 or the 660… They’re pin-compatible. Let’s hope for the best.


As was previously mentioned, you can find all the Fairphone FP3 benchmarks here [1]. The output of the benchmarks are similar, and the specs are real. Which points to the benchmarks being reliable.

[1] https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q="Fairphone+FP3"


I looked into it above in the earlier posts. I don’t remember the very details, but all the comparisons I did were written and shared in the open.

  1. The 636 and (especially) the 660 would give much better performance.

  2. Neither of these is only 1.8 GHz; the 632 is.

  3. Meanwhile, the very string (with the […] 1.8 GHz […]) was only found in other smartphones which sported… the 632.

Assuming it is the 632 is a safe bet. (I’d bet money on it, lol :slight_smile: [though that’s a fallacy, its meant jokingly not to reinforce the above])


Oops! Sorry for not giving any justification of what’s wrong with WiFi 4.

I haven’t handled many devices with WiFi 4, but any time I did an internet speed test, the download speed was always lower than 72Mb/s. My internet speed at home is 360 Mb/s, and that’s exactly what I get on my desktop with a wired connection (category 6 ethernet cable). Ping was 5 ms.

WiFi 5: During my brief affair with a BQ Aquaris X2, I got 210 Mb/s download speed and 11 ms ping.

Now, there’s, nothing wrong with a 70 Mb/s download speed connection. There are many people out there who would be very happy to get this where they live or work. It’s perfectly satisfactory. It’s just that when I’m paying out money every month for home internet, I want to get the most out of it. That’s all.

P.S. I noticed if I looked into the WiFi settings on any WiFi 4 device I tried, it always showed that the WiFi connection was 72 Mb/s. This wasn’t the real speed, but it indicated what the device was capable of with the router in question. This does not correspond with the information I found on Wikipedia for 802.11n, which indicates that it is capable of going up to 600Mb/s. Maybe the older SOC used wasn’t capable of going higher. This is way beyond my limited techie knowledge. I’ve nonetheless somehow concluded in my mind that cheaper processors only capable of WiFi 4 are also only capable of 72 Mb/s download speed or less.

One other thing – on WiFi 4, the internet connection was always much poorer than on my WiFi 5 device when in situations where I was far from a router and where the connection was generally poor anyway. Again though, this could be due to the WiFi 4 devices being cheaper and generally of lower quality.

OK, another thing – the WiFi in pubs, cafés etc. in Bordeaux is incredibly fast. It’s like that there everywhere. Amazing! I had my BQ Aquaris X2 at the time. I was on holiday there after Rouen and Tours. Only Bordeaux had these speeds. Wasted on me really, but amazing nonetheless.


I’m impressed with the level of detail some of you guys have been able to dig up. It’s looking more and more like a Qualcomm Snapdragon 636. I’m still harping on about wired connections, but if it comes with a USB 3.1 port this will be the only phone with a removable battery to do so and will be the best computer phone of 2019.

1 Like

I hope they supply 3 hardened glass screensavers with the phone this time. Third party screensavers never fit perfectly.

1 Like

How? @JeroenH and @RSpliet very convincingly argue it most probably will be the 632.

Not everybody uses or needs those. Why produce unnecessary waste for a Fairphone?
They could offer them in the shop, if anything.

802.11n can be 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz.

5 GHz

  • Deliver higher throughput
  • Lower range
  • Only allowed indoors

2.4 GHz

  • Lower throughput
  • Suffers more from interference (only 3 [namely 1,6,11] channels are, practically, available)
  • Allows better range (though see interference)

These factors will matter, at any location you are, at any time.


  • Other clients around you even those also utilizing same frequencies. The speed is shared between other devices (except with mesh between clients, and with regards to MU-MIMO).
  • Distance from AP
  • Objects between you and AP
  • It depends per device cause no device has same chip or antenna

My point being these factors make it difficult for a layman to assess how well a piece of hardware with WLAN (or is it WiFi in this context shrug) is working.

So I want practical information. I am interested in hearing about specific use cases where 802.11ac is required, on a smartphone. In other words, use cases where higher bandwidth was required. The only one I can think of, is streaming video. How much bandwidth would streaming video from say Netflix (arguably the most popular streaming video service) on 1080p take? Well, first of all, you can’t even stream 1080p from a FP2 via Netflix. Because it has WideVine L3 which is SD quality. Even if you save the content offline (which I recommend as it saves you data), it won’t work on 1080p. Now, you could grab a FP3, and combine it with Emby (or Kodi or Plex or whatever – each which are far less popular than a use case of Netflix), and then stream from your home server or whatever. Then you’d stream at 1080p from the coffeeshop to your home server. The amount of people interested in this? Very little.

So which use cases remain? Cloud syncing? You’d need to access huge data on your phone, you’d just sync it over WLAN whilst at work or home. I recommend to not sync everything to/from cloud on your phone; only what you really do need. The only one I can think of, is tethering. With tethering though, you’d get the full speed of the WLAN standard you are using. Because your client and your router (the smartphone) are freely deployable as you see fit, space-wise. So if the device would sport say 802.11n only, you’d get the full bandwidth.

Basically, my conclusion is that for a mid tier smartphone 802.11ac is a gimmick. It isn’t necessary. My old MBP 2010 (!!) has it. A laptop is more likely to need it. The same is true for 2.4 GHz and/or 5 GHz. As long as your router can do both, and it isn’t set to only do 5 GHz, you’re going to be alright with a few devices utilizing only 2.4 GHz. The worst part of the story, is that it clogs the 2.4 space a bit more.

EDIT: Forgot to mention 802.11ac is 5 GHz only, so indoor use only. One benefit of utilizing 5 GHz only on devices, is that it leaves you more room for 2.4 GHz devices affecting bandwidth & interference.

True. The argument for a 632 is very convincing. Can’t be a 632 though, because that doesn’t have WiFi 5. Not the SOC itself anyway. Maybe it uses an add-on modem.

Fair point about the screensavers. I doubt very much it will come with any screensaver anyway. The lip on the case itself will provide some protection to the screen though.

1 Like