Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tempted by the Ultra, but won't buy it because of the chip

J

johnlmccurdy

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 29, 2012
6
26
I have a series 6 and before that the series 0 (the original!) The series 6 to this day at nearly 2 years old feels very snappy and there is zero lag in opening apps or processing data or actioning any input I am giving it. The chip was clearly overpowered from day 1 for this watch and seems to remain the case.

That being said, it is now a 2 year old chip set and surely only has a certain amount of headroom left before it is at the stage of being underpowered relative to the demands of the software and features set that apple presents us.

The ultra already has a more demanding set of features than the series watches and yet is using the same chip set as my series 6. I don't see how the ultra will last as long therefore as the series 6 for example.

The Ultra is the iPad 3!
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: izzy0242mr, addamas, ajcgn and 18 others
Are you buying a bullet list on a Web site, or are you buying a watch?

Me? I bought a watch. I honestly don't care what CPU the watch has, so long as the watch functions smoothly and responsively — which the Ultra does in style.

Maybe it’s because I’m an old fart. I remember the days when I drooled over the thought of being on the same campus as a Cray supercomputer that would have gotten its netherbits kicked by this watch.

But, hey. Maybe you’re doing something even bigger with your watch than the university did with its supercomputer. Which would certainly be cool. Weird, to be sure, but in a cool way. More power to you.

In the mean time, have you checked out the iPhone? Its CPU puts the one in the watch to shame ...

b&
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Toonartist, srminton, CyberDavis and 48 others
bthompson said:
I as well was disappointed by the lack of chip upgrades. However the ultra is excellent and honestly never once have I thought it should be faster. It just works great
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Why make a new chip a priority when the current one is clearly up to all tasks? We will of course get a faster chip at some point (because why not), but I struggle to think of anything that could conceivably be done on the Watch and is held back by computing power. I mean, you won‘t edit 4K video on the Watch, will you? If anything, a new chip on a smaller process will hopefully make battery life even better; that seems more useful than any gain in CPU speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyberDavis, anakin44011, madrigal77 and 12 others
I just bought a S8. I previously had a S0 from 2015. I stopped wearing it after about 2 years because the interface started to feel slow and clunky. I decided to get back in with a
AW for the new to me health features.
AWU seems like a great device although too much for me price wise. I love the look of the AWU. Tech is always improving somewhat year to year. You just have to decide when to jump in.

When you do decide to jump in there’s always going to be something “better” right around the corner. There’s no way to avoid it.
 
bruinsrme said:
How would we have benefited from a new chip. I don't notice any lag or performance differences between my S5, S7 and ultra
Click to expand...

I have an Ultra, and came here from a S5. If there was a newer chip than the S7, the answer to your question would be longevity. If they came out with a different processer, the lifespan of the S8/Ultra would likely be a couple years longer than an S7 and earlier. Even taking EOL out of it, speed issues will come later than it does with the S7.

I didn't even care about the processor, since my S5 battery was <80%, rather than spend money replacing the battery, I decided to go with the Ultra's new design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.C
JT2002TJ said:
I have an Ultra, and came here from a S5. If there was a newer chip than the S7, the answer to your question would be longevity. If they came out with a different processer, the lifespan of the S8/Ultra would likely be a couple years longer than an S7 and earlier. Even taking EOL out of it, speed issues will come later than it does with the S7.

I didn't even care about the processor, since my S5 battery was QUOTE]

At the end of the day It all depends on individual circumstances whether the lack of a new chip is important or not. I’ve come from the same situation as you. I have a Series 5 whose battery is not lasting a day plus it doesn’t support fast charge either. Rather than replace the battery it made better sense for me to upgrade to the Ultra especially as I’d skipped the 6 and the 7.

The Ultra is a big enough improvement for me with the double the battery capacity, double the brightness of the display, the bigger display all be it minor ( the flat screen makes it bigger ), and the fast charge. So I’m happy with getting the Ultra.
Click to expand...
 
For me, it's all about the battery life and the screen, which are both amazing. Industrial design is a nice refresh as well. None of those things have to do with the processor speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agile55 and Mr.C
the future said:
Exactly this. Why make a new chip a priority when the current one is clearly up to all tasks? We will of course get a faster chip at some point (because why not), but I struggle to think of anything that could conceivably be done on the Watch and is held back by computing power. I mean, you won‘t edit 4K video on the Watch, will you? If anything, a new chip on a smaller process will hopefully make battery life even better; that seems more useful than any gain in CPU speed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand. When I was first considering the Ultra, I also thought about the concern of the chip being 2 years old. That said, I also though the chip is probably way more powerful than any top of the line Garmin watch and for the purposes of a watch computer, this chip could last a while. I did end up buying the Ultra. I was also upgrading from a Series 4, so the difference is much bigger than upgrading from a Series 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.C and the future
JT2002TJ said:
I have an Ultra, and came here from a S5. If there was a newer chip than the S7, the answer to your question would be longevity. If they came out with a different processer, the lifespan of the S8/Ultra would likely be a couple years longer than an S7 and earlier. Even taking EOL out of it, speed issues will come later than it does with the S7.

I didn't even care about the processor, since my S5 battery was <80%, rather than spend money replacing the battery, I decided to go with the Ultra's new design.
Click to expand...
Since the ultra has a newer chip how much of a difference do you notice.
My Black SS S4 to S5 ceramic I notice a difference in boot up and the S5 is smoother than the S4z
S5 to ultra. Ultra is noticeably faster in start up, updating and downloading.
Now that the ultra is pretty much set up I find little performance difference between the S5 and ultra.
As mentioned I don’t see any overwhelming performance difference between my S4 and ultra.
Last year the Ti watches cost more than what the ultra is priced at. I was happy to pay $749 for the ultra than $849 or more.
Using the same chip for 6,7 and 8 was more than likely a balance between cost, production time, yields and quantity that would be available.
It takes some time for a product to yield really well and introducing a newer chip may have resulted in higher prices to the consumer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agile55 and BigMcGuire
johnlmccurdy said:
I have a series 6 and before that the series 0 (the original!) The series 6 to this day at nearly 2 years old feels very snappy and there is zero lag in opening apps or processing data or actioning any input I am giving it. The chip was clearly overpowered from day 1 for this watch and seems to remain the case.

That being said, it is now a 2 year old chip set and surely only has a certain amount of headroom left before it is at the stage of being underpowered relative to the demands of the software and features set that apple presents us.

The ultra already has a more demanding set of features than the series watches and yet is using the same chip set as my series 6. I don't see how the ultra will last as long therefore as the series 6 for example.

The Ultra is the iPad 3!
Click to expand...
WatchOS and all Watch apps, third part and proprietary, are incredibly limited on all parameters and simply don’t require more than what we currently get.

I’d be much more concerned with the many caveats to features and lackluster third party app integration than the hardware itself.

It doesn’t seem Apple is making a big push to have better app integration and more fully independent features .

I’m very disappointed with how many Watch apps require me to be within range of my iPhone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.C and haruhiko
ApplesAreSweet&Sour said:
I’m very disappointed with how many Watch apps require me to be within range of my iPhone.
Click to expand...

Care to give a few examples?

ErikGrim said:
I can guarantee you that no one has had any issues with performance or can tell much of a difference performance wise between any watch generation starting with series 5. It's all about sensors and battery life now.
Click to expand...

While I agree in general, I think the big „it doesn‘t matter anymore“ step came with the S6; the S5 sometimes felt a little slow still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
Considering the Ultra. The battery life is one, health and workout tracking, as well as sleep, another benefit. The speed compared to my old S5? Last of my worries after having tried the Ultra in store.

johnlmccurdy said:
The Ultra is the iPad 3!
Click to expand...
Nah, Ultra is the new Edition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bwillwall
Is have the S6 now and I was thinking of the Ultra but the huge price jump doesn’t seem worth it to me. I’ll prob buy a used one next year lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back