OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Tablets Methodology v1.0
Tablets Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Tablets Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Tablets Methodology v1.0

Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) Review | 168 Data compared

Avg. price:~ÂŁ260RAM capacity:0.5 GBInternal storage:8 GBScreen size:10.1 inchesChipset:Texas Instruments OMAP 3660

Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Tablets category and whether it is worth buying.

4.7

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 10
âś•
What it is
An overall evaluation of the smartphone's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best Tablets on the market.
Score distribution
â–Ľ
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–Ľ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

90%

4.5

Technical score

10%

6.3

User score

â–ĽWorse than 98% of tablets
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
âś•
What it is
An assessment of the smartphone's technical performance, covering eight key areas: performance & hardware, software, camera, connectivity, display, battery, audio, and design.
When it matters
When you want to compare Tablets based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–Ľ
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–Ľ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

22%

4.2

Performance

20%

4.4

Display

16%

4.8

Camera

14%

2.8

Battery

12%

5.4

Connectivity

8%

5.8

Software & Features

5%

4.4

Design

3%

6.0

Audio & Multimedia

â–ĽWorse than 99% of tablets
6.3

User score

User score
6.3/ 10
âś•
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
When it matters
When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–Ľ
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

User ratings

30%

4.2

Number of reviews

Based on 21 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
â–ĽWorse than 93% of tablets
  • archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
  • archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
  • archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
  • archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
  • archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb
archos-101-g9-512mb-8gb

Best prices

    N/A~ ÂŁ260

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of tablet Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB)

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
âś•
What it is
An assessment of the smartphone's technical performance, covering eight key areas: performance & hardware, software, camera, connectivity, display, battery, audio, and design.
When it matters
When you want to compare Tablets based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–Ľ
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–Ľ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

22%

4.2

Performance

20%

4.4

Display

16%

4.8

Camera

14%

2.8

Battery

12%

5.4

Connectivity

8%

5.8

Software & Features

5%

4.4

Design

3%

6.0

Audio & Multimedia

4.5
User score
User score
6.3/ 10
âś•
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
When it matters
When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–Ľ
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

User ratings

30%

4.2

Number of reviews

Based on 21 buyer reviews from online shops.
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →
How we calculate this
User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.
Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.
6.3
Popularity
Popularity
4.2/ 10
âś•
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the smartphone.
When it matters
When you prefer to purchase a product chosen and reviewed by many other consumers.
Score distribution
â–Ľ
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–Ľ Worse than 54% of models
Popularity:
Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) has a popularity of 4.2 points, which is higher than 53.8% of Tablets.
4.2
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 10
âś•
What it is
An indicator that combines the smartphone's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a smartphone with a good balance between quality and price.
Score distribution
â–Ľ
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–Ľ Worse than 95% of models
Score components:

60%

4.7

Overall score

40%

9.2

Price

6.0
RAM capacity
0.5 GB
RAM capacity
0.5 GB
â–Ľ Worse than 97% of models
Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
This tablet has a RAM capacity of 0.5 GB which is smaller than the RAM capacity of 97.1% of tablets and equal to that of 2.6% of tablets.
Process node
45 nm
Process node
45 nm
â–Ľ Worse than 95% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
This tablet is built on a 45 nm process node, which is larger than the node size used in 94.9% of tablets and equal to the node used in 4.4% of tablets.
Internal storage
8 GB
Internal storage
8 GB
â–Ľ Worse than 94% of models
Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
This tablet has an internal storage capacity of 8 GB which is smaller than the storage of 93.5% of tablets and equal to that of 4.9% of tablets.
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
?
Chipset
Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
Chipset
Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
â–Ľ Worse than 74% of models
This tablet uses the Texas Instruments OMAP 3660 chipset, which is less advanced than the chipsets in 73.6% of tablets and equal to those in 0.2% of tablets.
Show more
Screen resolution
1280Ă—800
Screen resolution
1280Ă—800
â–Ľ Worse than 68% of models
This tablet has a screen resolution of 1280Ă—800 which is lower than that of 68.1% of tablets and equal to that of 21.7% of tablets.
Refresh rate
60 Hz
Refresh rate
60 Hz
â–Ľ Worse than 26% of models
Market range: <60 Hz – >120 Hz
This tablet supports a refresh rate of 60 Hz which is equal to that in 73.8% of tablets.
Display type
TFT LCD
Display type
TFT LCD
â–Ľ Worse than 90% of models
This tablet uses a TFT LCD display type. 89.9% of tablets use this display technology.
Pixel density
149 ppi
Pixel density
149 ppi
â–Ľ Worse than 87% of models
Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
This tablet has a pixel density of 149 ppi which is lower than that of 86.8% of tablets and equal to that of 9.2% of tablets.
Display glass type
?
Show more
Optical image stabilization
no
Optical image stabilization
no
Category Benchmark
This tablet does not support optical image stabilization. 0.4% of tablets include OIS.
Main camera megapixels
N/A
Front camera megapixels
0.3 MP
Front camera megapixels
0.3 MP
â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
This tablet has a front camera resolution of 0.3 MP which is lower than in 93% of tablets and equal to that in 7% of tablets.
Main camera aperture
N/A
Optical zoom
N/A
Show more
Battery capacity
4,600 mAh
Battery capacity
4,600 mAh
â–Ľ Worse than 77% of models
Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
This tablet has a battery capacity of 4,600 mAh which is smaller than the batteries in 77.2% of tablets and equal to those in 0.6% of tablets.
Charging speed
10 W
Charging speed
10 W
â–Ľ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <10 W – >60 W
This tablet supports charging speeds of 10 W which is slower than in 61% of tablets and equal to speeds in 33.2% of tablets.
Battery life
7 hours
Battery life
7 hours
â–Ľ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <6 hours – >16 hours
This tablet has a battery life of 7 hours, which is shorter than that of 85.4% of tablets and equal to that of 5.5% of tablets.
video playback
Wireless charging
no
Wireless charging
no
â–Ľ Worse than 2% of models
This tablet does not support wireless charging. 1.5% of tablets support wireless charging.
Fast charging
no
Fast charging
no
â–Ľ Worse than 50% of models
This tablet does not support fast charging. 49.7% of tablets support fast charging.
Show more
LTE support
no
LTE support
no
â–Ľ Worse than 63% of models
This tablet does not support LTE. 63.3% of tablets include LTE connectivity.
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
Wi-Fi connectivity
yes
Category Benchmark
This tablet supports Wi-Fi connectivity. 0.2% of tablets offer Wi-Fi support.
GPS
no
GPS
no
â–Ľ Worse than 83% of models
This tablet does not support GPS. 82.7% of tablets include GPS functionality.
5G connectivity
no
5G connectivity
no
â–Ľ Worse than 11% of models
This tablet does not support 5G connectivity. 11.1% of tablets support 5G.
NFC
no
NFC
no
â–Ľ Worse than 11% of models
This tablet does not support NFC. 10.9% of tablets support NFC.
Show more
Operating system
Android
Operating system
Android
â–˛ Better than 23% of models
This tablet uses the Android operating system, which is more advanced than the one used by 23.3%.
Update support duration
short
Update support duration
short
â–Ľ Worse than 53% of models
This tablet offers short update support, which is shorter than the support period of 52.7% of tablets and equal to that of 47.3% of tablets.
Direct OS updates
yes
Direct OS updates
yes
â–˛ Better than 20% of models
This tablet receives direct OS updates. 20.3% of tablets receive direct updates.
On-device AI
no
On-device AI
no
â–Ľ Worse than 28% of models
This tablet does not support on-device AI. 28.3% of tablets support this capability.
App tracking protection
no
App tracking protection
no
â–Ľ Worse than 28% of models
This tablet does not include app tracking protection. 28.3% of tablets include app tracking protection.
Show more
IP rating
not rated
IP rating
not rated
â–Ľ Worse than 16% of models
This tablet has an IP rating of not rated which is lower than that of 16.3% of tablets and equal to that of 83.7% of tablets.
Weight
649 g
Weight
649 g
â–Ľ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <315 g – >730 g
This tablet weighs 649 g which is heavier than 83.2% of tablets and equal to the weight of 0.1% of tablets.
Backlit keyboard
no
Backlit keyboard
no
â–Ľ Worse than 10% of models
This tablet does not support a backlit keyboard. 9.8% of tablets support backlit keyboards.
Keyboard accessory
yes
Keyboard accessory
yes
â–˛ Better than 16% of models
This tablet supports a keyboard accessory. 15.8% of tablets support this option.
Pen latency
N/A
Show more
Number of microphones
1
Number of microphones
1
â–Ľ Worse than 45% of models
Market range: <0 – >5
This tablet includes 1 microphones, which is more than in 0.2% of tablets and equal to the number in 54.8% of tablets.
aptX Adaptive
no
aptX Adaptive
no
â–Ľ Worse than 7% of models
This tablet does not support aptX Adaptive. 6.9% of tablets offer this codec.
Dolby Atmos support
no
Dolby Atmos support
no
â–Ľ Worse than 31% of models
This tablet does not support Dolby Atmos. 31.5% of tablets support Dolby Atmos.
N. of speakers
?
FM radio
no
FM radio
no
â–Ľ Worse than 19% of models
This tablet does not include an FM radio. 19% of tablets offer FM radio functionality.
Show more

Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) vs the average tablet

246810TotalPerformanceDisplayCameraBatteryConnectivitySoftware & FeaturesDesignAudio & Multimedia
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
    â–Ľ Worse than 74% of models
    This tablet uses the Texas Instruments OMAP 3660 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3,660 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • More capable chipset
    Chipset
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3660
    â–Ľ Worse than 74% of models
    This tablet uses the Texas Instruments OMAP 3660 chipset, while the average tablet uses MediaTek MT8169A.
    Texas Instruments OMAP 3,660 vs MediaTek MT8169A
  • 4.7 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    0.3 MP
    â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (0.3 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    0.3 MP vs 5 MP
  • Inferior display type
    Display type
    TFT LCD
    â–Ľ Worse than 90% of models
    This tablet has an inferior display type compared to the average tablet (TFT LCD vs IPS LCD). 0.00% of tablets use the superior display type.
    TFT LCD vs IPS LCD
  • 3.5 GB less RAM
    RAM capacity
    0.5 GB
    â–Ľ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (0.5 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    0.5 GB vs 4 GB
  • No USB Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a USB Type-C port, the average tablet includes one. 53.4% of tablets use USB Type-C.
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1 GHz
    â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 GHz – >3.2 GHz
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 3 hours shorter battery life
    Battery life
    7 hours
    â–Ľ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <6 hours – >16 hours
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (7 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    video playback
    7 hours vs 10 hours
  • Shorter update support
    Update support duration
    short
    â–Ľ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • 33.5% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    149 ppi
    â–Ľ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (149 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    149 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • 18.2% worse value for money
    Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) has worse value for money than the average tablet (6.01 vs 7.1).
    6.01 vs 7.1
  • 26.8% lower user score
    User score
    6.3/ 10
    âś•
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–Ľ
    â–Ľ
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Archos 101 G9
    the average tablet
    Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) has a lower user score than the average tablet (6.31 vs 8.000).
    6.31 vs 8
  • 3.5 GB less RAM
    RAM capacity
    0.5 GB
    â–Ľ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <2 GB – >12 GB
    This tablet has less RAM capacity than the average tablet (0.5 GB vs 4 GB). The average tablet has 4 GB of RAM.
    0.5 GB vs 4 GB
  • 50% lower CPU speed
    CPU speed
    1 GHz
    â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 GHz – >3.2 GHz
    This tablet has a lower CPU speed than the average tablet (1 GHz vs 2 GHz). The average tablet has CPU speed of 2 GHz.
    1 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • 3.21x larger process node
    Process node
    45 nm
    â–Ľ Worse than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >40 nm
    This tablet uses a larger process node than the average tablet (45 nm vs 14 nm). The average tablet uses a process node of 14 nm.
    45 nm vs 14 nm
  • 5 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    1
    â–Ľ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This tablet has less CPU threads than the average tablet (1 vs 6). The average tablet has 6 CPU threads.
    1 vs 6
  • 87.5% less storage
    Internal storage
    8 GB
    â–Ľ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <0 GB – >250 GB
    This tablet has less internal storage than the average tablet (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average tablet provides 64 GB of internal storage.
    8 GB vs 64 GB
  • Worse GPU
    GPU model
    PowerVR SGX540
    â–Ľ Worse than 78% of models
    This tablet uses the PowerVR SGX540 GPU, while the average tablet uses the stronger Mali-G51. GPU choice is one of the main performance differences between tablets.
    PowerVR SGX540 vs Mali-G51
  • No big.LITTLE architecture
    big.LITTLE Architecture
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 51% of models
    This tablet does not use a big.LITTLE architecture, the average tablet does. 51.3% of tablets use a big.LITTLE architecture.
  • 57% lower memory bandwidth
    Memory bandwidth
    6.4 GB/s
    â–Ľ Worse than 76% of models
    Market range: <4.26 GB/s – >60 GB/s
    This tablet has a lower memory bandwidth than the average tablet (6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s). The average tablet has memory bandwidth of 14.9 GB/s.
    6.4 GB/s vs 14.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR memory version
    DDR memory version
    LPDDR2
    â–Ľ Worse than 83% of models
    This tablet uses an older DDR memory version than the average tablet (LPDDR2 vs LPDDR3). The average tablet uses DDR version LPDDR3.
    LPDDR2 vs LPDDR3
  • Inferior display type
    Display type
    TFT LCD
    â–Ľ Worse than 90% of models
    This tablet has an inferior display type compared to the average tablet (TFT LCD vs IPS LCD). 0.00% of tablets use the superior display type.
    TFT LCD vs IPS LCD
  • 33.5% lower pixel density
    Pixel density
    149 ppi
    â–Ľ Worse than 87% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower pixel density than the average tablet (149 ppi vs 224 ppi). The average tablet has pixel density of 224 ppi.
    149 ppi vs 224 ppi
  • 224 nits lower peak brightness
    Peak brightness
    177 nits
    â–Ľ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <320 nits – >750 nits
    This tablet has a lower peak brightness than the average tablet (177 nits vs 401 nits). The average tablet reaches 401 nits peak brightness.
    177 nits vs 401 nits
  • Lower contrast ratio
    Contrast ratio
    494:1
    â–Ľ Worse than 99% of models
    This tablet has a lower contrast ratio than the average tablet (494:1 vs 1015:1). The average tablet has a contrast ratio of 1015:1.
    494:1 vs 1,015:1
  • Lower screen resolution
    Screen resolution
    1280Ă—800
    â–Ľ Worse than 68% of models
    This tablet has a lower screen resolution than the average tablet (1280Ă—800 vs 1920Ă—1200). The average tablet has a resolution of 1920Ă—1200.
    1280Ă—800 vs 1920Ă—1200
  • 103 ppi lower screen sharpness
    Screen sharpness
    118 ppi
    â–Ľ Worse than 99% of models
    Market range: <149 ppi – >291 ppi
    This tablet has a lower screen sharpness than the average tablet (118 ppi vs 221 ppi). The average tablet has screen sharpness of 221 ppi.
    118 ppi vs 221 ppi
  • 4.7 MP lower front camera megapixels
    Front camera megapixels
    0.3 MP
    â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <1.2 MP – >9 MP
    This tablet has less front camera megapixels than the average tablet (0.3 MP vs 5 MP). The average tablet has 5 MP front camera resolution.
    0.3 MP vs 5 MP
  • No continuous video AF
    Continuous autofocus in video
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 58% of models
    This tablet does not support continuous video AF, the average tablet does. 57.7% of tablets support continuous video autofocus.
  • Worse main-camera video
    Video recording (main camera)
    720 x 30 fps
    â–Ľ Worse than 77% of models
    This tablet supports worse main-camera video recording than the average tablet (720x30 fps vs 1080x30 fps). The average tablet supports 1080x30 fps main-camera video recording.
    720x30 fps vs 1080x30 fps
  • No touch autofocus
    Touch autofocus
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 83% of models
    This tablet does not support touch autofocus, the average tablet does. 82.8% of tablets allow touch-to-focus.
  • No manual exposure control
    Manual exposure
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 64% of models
    This tablet does not offer manual exposure control, the average tablet does. 63.6% of tablets have manual exposure.
  • No manual white balance
    Manual white balance
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 52% of models
    This tablet does not allow manual white balance adjustments, the average tablet does. 51.6% of tablets include white balance controls.
  • No BSI sensor
    BSI sensor
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a BSI sensor, the average tablet has one. 52.6% of tablets use BSI sensors for better low-light shots.
  • 3 hours shorter battery life
    Battery life
    7 hours
    â–Ľ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <6 hours – >16 hours
    This tablet offers shorter battery life than the average tablet (7 hours vs 10 hours). The average tablet offers 10 hours of battery life.
    video playback
    7 hours vs 10 hours
  • 30.1% smaller battery capacity
    Battery capacity
    4,600 mAh
    â–Ľ Worse than 77% of models
    Market range: <4k mAh – >10.1k mAh
    This tablet has a lower battery capacity than the average tablet (4600 mAh vs 6580 mAh). The average tablet battery has capacity of 6580 mAh.
    4,600 mAh vs 6,580 mAh
  • 44.4% slower charging speed
    Charging speed
    10 W
    â–Ľ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <10 W – >60 W
    This tablet supports slower charging than the average tablet (10 W vs 18 W). The average tablet supports charging speed of 18 W.
    10 W vs 18 W
  • No USB Type-C
    USB Type-C
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet lacks a USB Type-C port, the average tablet includes one. 53.4% of tablets use USB Type-C.
  • No LTE support
    LTE support
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 63% of models
    This tablet does not support LTE, the average tablet does. 63.2% of tablets support LTE.
  • Older Bluetooth version
    Bluetooth version
    2.1
    â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
    This tablet uses an older Bluetooth version than the average tablet (2.1 vs 5). The average tablet uses Bluetooth 5.0.
    2.1 vs 5.0
  • Older Wi-Fi version
    Wi-Fi version
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n)
    â–Ľ Worse than 63% of models
    This tablet uses an older Wi-Fi version than the average tablet (Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)). The average tablet uses Wi-Fi Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac).
    Wi-Fi 4 (802.11n) vs Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
  • No GPS
    GPS
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 83% of models
    This tablet does not have GPS, the average tablet does. 82.7% of tablets feature GPS.
  • No cellular module
    Cellular module
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 59% of models
    This tablet does not have a cellular module, the average tablet does. 59.3% of tablets include a cellular module.
  • Shorter update support
    Update support duration
    short
    â–Ľ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet offers shorter update support than the average tablet (short vs medium). The average tablet gets medium of update support.
    short vs medium
  • No split-screen
    Split-screen support
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 72% of models
    This tablet does not support split-screen, the average tablet does. 72.4% of tablets support split-screen.
  • No picture-in-picture mode
    Picture-in-picture
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 61% of models
    This tablet does not support picture-in-picture, the average tablet does. 61% of tablets support picture-in-picture.
  • No camera/mic privacy toggles
    Camera/mic privacy
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 56% of models
    This tablet lacks camera and microphone privacy toggles, the average tablet includes them. 56.2% of tablets offer these toggles.
  • No multi-user mode
    User score
    6.3/ 10
    âś•
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the smartphone
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a smartphone handles daily tasks and how reliable it remains over time according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–Ľ
    â–Ľ
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Archos 101 G9
    the average tablet
    Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) does not support multi-user mode, the average tablet does. 73.6% of tablets allow multiple user profiles.
  • No full-page screenshots
    Full-page screenshots
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 53% of models
    This tablet does not support full-page screenshots, the average tablet does. 52.5% of tablets support full-page screenshots.
  • No location privacy controls
    Location privacy
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 76% of models
    This tablet does not offer location privacy controls, the average tablet does. 76.5% of tablets include location privacy features.
  • No voice command support
    Voice commands
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 96% of models
    This tablet does not support voice commands, the average tablet does. 96.3% of tablets include voice command support.
  • No dark mode
    Dark mode
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 57% of models
    This tablet does not support dark mode, the average tablet does. 57.2% of tablets have dark mode.
  • No offline voice recognition
    Offline voice recognition
    no
    â–Ľ Worse than 76% of models
    This tablet does not support offline voice recognition, the average tablet does. 76.1% of tablets support offline voice recognition.
  • 32.4% heavier
    Weight
    649 g
    â–Ľ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <315 g – >730 g
    This tablet is heavier than the average tablet (649 g vs 490 g). The average tablet weighs 490 g.
    649 g vs 490 g
  • 4.6 mm thicker
    Thickness
    12.6 mm
    â–Ľ Worse than 93% of models
    Market range: <6.1 mm – >11.5 mm
    This tablet is thicker than the average tablet (12.6 mm vs 8 mm). The average tablet is 8.0 mm thick.
    12.6 mm vs 8.0 mm
  • 100.7 mm wider
    Width
    276.0 mm
    â–Ľ Worse than 91% of models
    Market range: <123.8 mm – >274 mm
    This tablet is wider than the average tablet (276 mm vs 175.3 mm). The average tablet is 175.3 mm wide.
    276.0 mm vs 175.3 mm
  • 8 older release date
    Release date
    2011
    â–Ľ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This tablet is an older model than the average tablet (2011 vs 2019).
    October 2011
    2011 vs 2019

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cnet.com
05/10/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9 (10.1-inch) review - CNET
U
uk.pcmag.com
23/11/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9 - Review 2011 - PCMag UK
E
expertreviews.co.uk
03/05/2012
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9 review - Expert Reviews
T
techradar.com
26/10/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9 review - TechRadar
T
trustedreviews.com
25/10/2011
Summary of the review
Archos G9 101 Review - Trusted Reviews
C
cnet.com
08/11/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9 review - CNET
C
cnet.com
13/10/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 80 and 101 G9 reviews: Bad timing - CNET Expert Reviews
P
pocket-lint.com
16/04/2013
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9 - Pocket-lint
C
computerbild.de
19/06/2012
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9 Turbo im Test
(Translated)Show original
H
hifitest.de
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Archos 10.1 G9 - Tablets im Test - sehr gut
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbild.de
09/11/2011
Summary of the review
Praxistest: Android-Tablet-PC Archos 101 G9
(Translated)Show original
A
android-user.de
08/09/2023
Summary of the review
Im Test: 10-Zoll-Tablet Archos 101 G9
(Translated)Show original
C
cnetfrance.fr
27/09/2011
Summary of the review
Archos G9 101
(Translated)Show original
C
clubic.com
29/09/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9: une tablette d'entrée de gamme crédible
(Translated)Show original
0
01net.com
21/10/2011
Summary of the review
Test Tablette Archos G9 101: des qualités et pas mal de défauts
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
04/04/2012
Summary of the review
Test : Archos 101 G9 Turbo, enfin la bonne équation - Les Numériques Souhaitez-vous des précisions sur les différences techniques entre la version sta...
(Translated)Show original
X
xataka.com
05/12/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9, lo hemos probado
(Translated)Show original
T
totaaltv.nl
21/05/2016
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9: Veel Android voor weinig - Totaal TV
(Translated)Show original
F
fwdmagazine.be
11/04/2012
Summary of the review
Review: ARCHOS 101 G9 - FWD Magazine
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
10/11/2011
Summary of the review
Archos 101 G9: voor een duppie op de eerste rang? - Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on 21 buyer reviews from online shops.
Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this
Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

What we like about Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB)

  • Excellent multimedia support with broad video codec compatibility
  • Built-in kickstand for convenient movie viewing
  • Highly competitive budget-friendly pricing
  • Smooth 1080p video playback and HDMI-out connectivity
  • Optional 3G stick provides versatile mobile internet access
  • Responsive touchscreen for gaming and navigation
  • Minimal pre-installed bloatware for a cleaner Android experience

What we don't like about Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB)

  • Cheap plastic build quality with noticeable flexing and creaking
  • Underwhelming battery life, especially when using the 3G dongle
  • Inconsistent performance with frequent lag and occasional freezes
  • Poor viewing angles and highly reflective screen surface
  • Low-quality front-facing camera with no rear-facing option
  • Extremely long battery recharging times
  • Awkward placement of some ports and buttons

Verdict

The Archos 101 G9 is a budget-friendly Android tablet featuring a 10.1-inch capacitive multi-touchscreen with a 1280x800 resolution. It is powered by a dual-core 1.0 GHz Texas Instruments OMAP 4 processor paired with 512MB of RAM and 8GB of internal flash storage, expandable via a microSDHC slot. Key characteristics include a built-in kickstand for media viewing, a mini-HDMI port for HD output, and a unique 3G expansion slot for an optional cellular dongle. Its main pros are excellent movie format compatibility, smooth 1080p video playback, and a near-stock Android experience (originally Honeycomb, upgradable to Ice Cream Sandwich). However, the device is held back by a cheap-feeling plastic build quality, occasionally sluggish performance due to limited RAM, long charging times, and the lack of a rear-facing camera.

Compare Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) with other tablets

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Archos 101 G9 (512MB + 8GB) and other tablets

No results found