This is my only qualm with it. Sure, people will downplay it and say it’s already fast enough, but in a few years from now when it starts slowing down and they eventually drop support, that 3 years will show its age more than if they had just thrown a new processor in it. Also, for the price, a better SoC than the rest of the line is definitely justified.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Ultra Features 76% Larger Battery Than Series 8
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mine are too, but I think I’ll appreciate how it stands out more on my smaller wrist. I’ve also felt that my Series 4 display is too small to really use the screen for much. I know that this isn’t vastly larger, but those extra few mm should make some difference.
Larger battery is very welcome. Hopefully the normal models also get increased battery capacity next year.
I just picked the Epix 2 for comparison, cause it features an OLED display. But for outdoor enthusiasts or sport enthusiasts there are options like the Fenix 7 or if you want a cheaper version, just pich the Fenix 6.Wow, I just looked at the Epix, and that thing is LOADED. for a serious outdoor enthusiast, that watch should be the pick above this one for the price by far. That thing is amazing.
That being said, my nike version 5 will just have to do for another 3-4 years, as the last thing I would spend $1k on is a watch. I am NOT the target market here
Those are the watches Apple wants to compete with and Apple failed with the Pro/Ultra/Whatever watch.
One CAN NOT EVEN connect this ugly beast with a cycling computer to share the heart rate monitor. An easy task for smartwatches - except the Apple watch.
I’m still on a series 4. It’s 4 generations old now and the performance is still great. Not sure what you all are doing on your watches.
My point isn't that it's not currently great, but that it's aging and won't stay as great for as long. That's like Apple releasing a Mac with an old Intel processor in it today. Sure, performance would be fine, but it won't hold up over time as well as if they put an M2 in it.
Im gonna buy one of those metal cases on Amazon for 20 quid and save myself a shed load of wonga, after all its the same CPU and as a male I dont ovulate !
Like I said, what are you doing with your watch? Intel vs M2 has noticeable differences. Rendering with Final Cut was much better on my M1 base vs my i9 Intel iMac. But I’m not rendering videos on my watch.
I get what you're asking, but you're still missing my point. Whether I need more power and efficiency or not is irrelevant. You could make the argument that iPhones and Macs have only needed new chips every 3 years, as well, because their processors have been more than sufficient. But if I'm buying a new computer (laptop, watch, tablet, phone, whatever), I would expect a new processor, even if just for longevity's sake- especially if I'm paying a premium. It was cheap and lazy of them not to update the SoC in the Ultra.