Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why didn’t the Ultra get a nice new chip :(
It would have been ideal but that’s Apple.

Last year Apple focused majorly on the external re-design and battery life. Also, I don’t think last year it was due for a chip to be upgraded. Apple usually takes 3-4 years before a CPU gets an upgrade. So this year it’s likely due. It’s also going to be another selling point for Apple to let users upgrade their Apple Watch Ultra.
 
How is this important? And I mean that question 100% seriously. I have a series 8 watch. If it were 500% faster, how would that be noticeable to me? When I check a notification or a run distance or something else, would I see a difference between 5ms and 1ms?
A faster CPU can mean a better battery life if it can get the job done quickly and go back to idle/sleep. If a slow inefficient CPU has to run at full load for a longer period it's just going to drain the battery quicker assuming both CPUs use the same amount of power.
 
It’s about damn time, but Apple continues to treat the Apple Watch internals as an afterthought, rather than increasing speed and efficiency. Even an extra 2-3 hours of battery life would be a welcome change with the Apple Watch. Maybe the new internals will finally provide the biggest upgrade since the S5… which is not saying much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: East India Company
Hey Apple, if you don't install macOS, an A15 is useless, on the contrary, explain to us how you will manage an A15 in the space of an Apple Watch, without dissipation, if it already has problems in an iPhone.
However, we are not waiting for an A15, if anything you should explain to us why you are always selling us the Apple Watch 4 with some improvement for 5 years, we are waiting for the blood glucose measurement, the no longer being a companion of the iPhone, the possibility of DEFINITELY burying that uselessness that are the smartphones from which wearables and tablets exist, and you know it, because before iPhone the project was born for iPad.
So ok, recycle the A15 that you couldn't sell, but that's not what we want, and you'll have to prove to us that it's not rubbish, as already happened in the past with updated CPUs on old form factors.
 
I'd rather wait another year if necessary and jump straight to 3nm.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on another chip update next year, considering they used a chip based on the 7 nm A13 for 3 years. 5 nm has been widely available since 2020, and the Apple Watch is rumoured to get it this year. It could be 2026 before the AW gets a chip made on a 3 nm process.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mgscheue and xmach
While this is "good" news, it seems this will be the ticket to get Ultra (1st gen) users to upgrade in 2 years when they announce that the original Ultra won't run the new OS because it can't multitask properly with it's "slow" processor.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: 4odomi
Hey Apple, if you don't install macOS, an A15 is useless, on the contrary, explain to us how you will manage an A15 in the space of an Apple Watch, without dissipation, if it already has problems in an iPhone.
However, we are not waiting for an A15, if anything you should explain to us why you are always selling us the Apple Watch 4 with some improvement for 5 years, we are waiting for the blood glucose measurement, the no longer being a companion of the iPhone, the possibility of DEFINITELY burying that uselessness that are the smartphones from which wearables and tablets exist, and you know it, because before iPhone the project was born for iPad.
So ok, recycle the A15 that you couldn't sell, but that's not what we want, and you'll have to prove to us that it's not rubbish, as already happened in the past with updated CPUs on old form factors.


It's not an A15, it'a a chip based on the A15. Likely it just is two of the A15's power saving cores.

Apple is not selling the AW4 any longer either, that was discontinued in September 2019.
 
Hey Apple, if you don't install macOS, an A15 is useless, on the contrary, explain to us how you will manage an A15 in the space of an Apple Watch, without dissipation, if it already has problems in an iPhone.
However, we are not waiting for an A15, if anything you should explain to us why you are always selling us the Apple Watch 4 with some improvement for 5 years, we are waiting for the blood glucose measurement, the no longer being a companion of the iPhone, the possibility of DEFINITELY burying that uselessness that are the smartphones from which wearables and tablets exist, and you know it, because before iPhone the project was born for iPad.
So ok, recycle the A15 that you couldn't sell, but that's not what we want, and you'll have to prove to us that it's not rubbish, as already happened in the past with updated CPUs on old form factors.
Umm, they won’t be putting a full A15 in the Apple Watch. Most likely it will be a dual core chip based on the little (efficiency) cores of the A15 (the A15 is a 6 core chip with 2 big cores, and 4 little cores). It will also have a significantly cut down GPU and lack several other A15 components that aren’t needed for a watch (or HomePod) chip such as the ISP and neural engine.

New features are nice but it’s not really reasonable to expect big headline new features every year in what is now a mature product line. Apple is no doubt working on features like blood glucose monitoring and blood pressure measurement, but it will probably be a few years before they are ready for prime time. My series 5 still does everything I want it to, hence why I’ve just kept it for over 3 years now, but when the Series 9 comes out I’ll certainly contemplate whether it is finally time to upgrade or if I should just spring for a battery replacement for my Series 5.
 
Okay, this has convinced me to finally upgrade my Stainless Steel Series 4 44mm to the Apple Watch Ultra Series 1. Battery life is starting to become an issue, especially because I have been exercising a lot more this year.

I assume they're going to pull the same crap and name the second one the Series 1?
I don't know if there's any history on the watch side, but in software counts start at zero, including references to position. So, in psuedocode:

Code:
array myArray = ['a','b','c'];
print myArray[0];

will print "a"

Code:
print myArray[1];

will print "b"

Apple is a tech company

So starting at zero isnt really crap, though it may not be what you're used to.
 
Hey Apple, if you don't install macOS, an A15 is useless, on the contrary, explain to us how you will manage an A15 in the space of an Apple Watch, without dissipation, if it already has problems in an iPhone.
However, we are not waiting for an A15, if anything you should explain to us why you are always selling us the Apple Watch 4 with some improvement for 5 years, we are waiting for the blood glucose measurement, the no longer being a companion of the iPhone, the possibility of DEFINITELY burying that uselessness that are the smartphones from which wearables and tablets exist, and you know it, because before iPhone the project was born for iPad.
So ok, recycle the A15 that you couldn't sell, but that's not what we want, and you'll have to prove to us that it's not rubbish, as already happened in the past with updated CPUs on old form factors.
Apple sits on almost 50% of the entire smart watch market -Nobody comes close in performance and build quality at the same price point, so they barely have to do anything to maintain sales.

Consumers are at fault for blindly buying what's essentially the same product, year after year -What company in their right mind would change a product if consumers keep buying and there's next to no competitors threatening your sales?

Profit margins is what companies strive for. You only need to put on a big show and impress consumers when sales are going down and they start looking to other brands.

Sales for Watch are still really market leading.
 
Last edited:
How is this important? And I mean that question 100% seriously. I have a series 8 watch. If it were 500% faster, how would that be noticeable to me? When I check a notification or a run distance or something else, would I see a difference between 5ms and 1ms?
I think battery could be the biggest improvement here with a new chip. Hopefully.
 
Apple Watch 5 owner. I have no problem with the speed of watch, better battery life would be very welcome though and any new health sensors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmach
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.