Apple please bring the 3nm chip to the Apple watch. It will double its battery life!
Apple's watch SoC is far ahead (at least 4-5 years) of anything that is available in competing watches, I doubt Apple would move to 3nm chip for Apple watch anytime soon.
In terms of battery life, the Apple watch is far behind others. So this move makes complete sense.
What actual smart watch has a battery life that far exceeds the Watch Ultra?
Anyone who values battery life as a key factor is unlikely to consider an Apple Watch but that shorter battery life brings more features across the board.
No shit. But there's a reason that smart is the qualifier for the watch, as opposed to sport or the simple watch. Dual-frequency GPS and cellular connectivity need a lot more power to operate than simply tracking your steps or telling the time.
Apple please bring the 3nm chip to the Apple watch. It will double its battery life!
Apple's watch SoC is far ahead (at least 4-5 years) of anything that is available in competing watches, I doubt Apple would move to 3nm chip for Apple watch anytime soon.
In terms of battery life, the Apple watch is far behind others. So this move makes complete sense.
What actual smart watch has a battery life that far exceeds the Watch Ultra?
Anyone who values battery life as a key factor is unlikely to consider an Apple Watch but that shorter battery life brings more features across the board.
No shit. But there's a reason that smart is the qualifier for the watch, as opposed to sport or the simple watch. Dual-frequency GPS and cellular connectivity need a lot more power to operate than simply tracking your steps or telling the time.
But those aren't the only factors that make a smart watch 'smart', are they? The watches I'm talking about are smartwatches not fitness bands. They do a whole lot more than just count steps or tell you the time and something like the GT 3 Pro even has dual frequency GPS and eSIM functionality. No shit!
And you don't need that dual frequency GPS or cellular functionality activated most of the time because you will have your phone with you so the net impact on battery life should not be a deal breaker for those features.
This shows how the transition from Motorola 68k to PowerPC, Intel x86, and Apple (TSMC) Silicon is history repeating. Apple innovation and product launches still depend on the CPU fab. We had tailwind with 7nm and 5nm allowing rapid improvements to products. With 3nm delayed everything stopped.
3nm will allow Apple to improve all products. From AirPods to Watch, but then we're stuck again waiting for 2nm.
Lui claims that TSMC's new 3nm processors are faster by an unspecified amount, and that it brings 35% more power efficiency.
Words like “faster” and “performance” could mean different things to different people. One meaning is just clock speed — that’s usually what people mean when talking about the power, performance, area (PPA) tradeoffs in chip design.
But another meaning is how quickly work gets done from the perspective of a user. That can be affected by more than just clock speed. It can also be affected by more work being done in parallel. Increasing parallelism is harder design wise, but that’s what apple’s chips excel at.
so… if apple could further increase the parallelism in their chips, then higher transistor density and lower power could actually translate into more performance
Apple please bring the 3nm chip to the Apple watch. It will double its battery life!
Apple's watch SoC is far ahead (at least 4-5 years) of anything that is available in competing watches, I doubt Apple would move to 3nm chip for Apple watch anytime soon.
In terms of battery life, the Apple watch is far behind others. So this move makes complete sense.
What actual smart watch has a battery life that far exceeds the Watch Ultra?
Anyone who values battery life as a key factor is unlikely to consider an Apple Watch but that shorter battery life brings more features across the board.
No shit. But there's a reason that smart is the qualifier for the watch, as opposed to sport or the simple watch. Dual-frequency GPS and cellular connectivity need a lot more power to operate than simply tracking your steps or telling the time.
But those aren't the only factors that make a smart watch 'smart', are they? The watches I'm talking about are smartwatches not fitness bands. They do a whole lot more than just count steps or tell you the time and something like the GT 3 Pro even has dual frequency GPS and eSIM functionality. No shit!
And you don't need that dual frequency GPS or cellular functionality activated most of the time because you will have your phone with you so the net impact on battery life should not be a deal breaker for those features.
And that makes those considerably less smart and less capable watches such a great option for everything that someone like you and the other guy feel the need to come onto an Apple focused website to claim how much the Apple Watch sucks, how no users don't need any of the advanced features it touts, and to post specs that are clearly without the features that Apple is listing for their Watch. It's douchy as fuck. If you see someone a Garmin forum or article about their watches talking about how their smart-ish watch doesn't have x-feature in the Apple Watch or say that a round display is a dumb feature for a watch no longer having mechanical arms and doing a lot more than being a basic chronometer then, please, by all means point out how they're being douchy as fuck and to get the fuck off.
Apple please bring the 3nm chip to the Apple watch. It will double its battery life!
Apple's watch SoC is far ahead (at least 4-5 years) of anything that is available in competing watches, I doubt Apple would move to 3nm chip for Apple watch anytime soon.
In terms of battery life, the Apple watch is far behind others. So this move makes complete sense.
What actual smart watch has a battery life that far exceeds the Watch Ultra?
Anyone who values battery life as a key factor is unlikely to consider an Apple Watch but that shorter battery life brings more features across the board.
No shit. But there's a reason that smart is the qualifier for the watch, as opposed to sport or the simple watch. Dual-frequency GPS and cellular connectivity need a lot more power to operate than simply tracking your steps or telling the time.
But those aren't the only factors that make a smart watch 'smart', are they? The watches I'm talking about are smartwatches not fitness bands. They do a whole lot more than just count steps or tell you the time and something like the GT 3 Pro even has dual frequency GPS and eSIM functionality. No shit!
And you don't need that dual frequency GPS or cellular functionality activated most of the time because you will have your phone with you so the net impact on battery life should not be a deal breaker for those features.
And that makes those considerably less smart and less capable watches such a great option for everything that someone like you and the other guy feel the need to come onto an Apple focused website to claim how much the Apple Watch sucks, how no users don't need any of the advanced features it touts, and to post specs that are clearly without the features that Apple is listing for their Watch. It's douchy as fuck. If you see someone a Garmin forum or article about their watches talking about how their smart-ish watch doesn't have x-feature in the Apple Watch or say that a round display is a dumb feature for a watch no longer having mechanical arms and doing a lot more than being a basic chronometer then, please, by all means point out how they're being douchy as fuck and to get the fuck off.
The other guy made a very valid point and entirely correct.
It was you who said this:
"What actual smart watch has a battery life that far exceeds the Watch Ultra?"
And to that you got a couple of answers with examples. Again, entirely correct.
Then, after your grand 'no shit' opening, you tried a 'yes but...' with reference to cellular and dual frequency GPS. That fell flat on its face too so now you fire off with the anti-Apple stuff.
The watch I referenced is not 'smartish'. It's catagorised as a premium smartwatch with premium build quality and advanced features.
Your question was simple and you got a simple answer. An answer that even tackled the battery conundrum itself from a features vs battery life perspective.
Comments
boss move…
And you don't need that dual frequency GPS or cellular functionality activated most of the time because you will have your phone with you so the net impact on battery life should not be a deal breaker for those features.
3nm will allow Apple to improve all products. From AirPods to Watch, but then we're stuck again waiting for 2nm.
so… if apple could further increase the parallelism in their chips, then higher transistor density and lower power could actually translate into more performance
It was you who said this:
"What actual smart watch has a battery life that far exceeds the Watch Ultra?"
And to that you got a couple of answers with examples. Again, entirely correct.
Then, after your grand 'no shit' opening, you tried a 'yes but...' with reference to cellular and dual frequency GPS. That fell flat on its face too so now you fire off with the anti-Apple stuff.
The watch I referenced is not 'smartish'. It's catagorised as a premium smartwatch with premium build quality and advanced features.
Your question was simple and you got a simple answer. An answer that even tackled the battery conundrum itself from a features vs battery life perspective.
Re-read what I wrote.
There was nothing 'douchy' about it.
Happy New Year!
PS douchy? WTF?