The S6 chip that is in the Ultra is seriously fast. How much faster do you need the watch to be. Everything is nearly instant. The total package of the Watch Ultra far exceeds the 2 year old processor inside of it, which again, is no slouch. It's as fast as the A13 in the 11 Pros.
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.
Tempted by the Ultra, but won't buy it because of the chip
- Thread starter johnlmccurdy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I suppose I would agree if I thought the chip in the Ultra were even among the top 10 reasons to get one.
How critical is it that the Apple Watch gets an entirely new CPU/GPU? It's not like the watch is currently under any kind of serious stress. There's always room for improvement with efficiency but there's other ways to improve upon that without mandating an entire new chipset.
I would rather Apple focus much more on new sensors and new ways the Apple Watch can be a health and life companion, rather than making the chip faster for the sake of a spreadsheet or a selling point. Since the S6 the speed of the watch loading content has been beyond my expectations, anyways. Until the system gains a feature that mandates more horsepower, there's no reason.
I would rather Apple focus much more on new sensors and new ways the Apple Watch can be a health and life companion, rather than making the chip faster for the sake of a spreadsheet or a selling point. Since the S6 the speed of the watch loading content has been beyond my expectations, anyways. Until the system gains a feature that mandates more horsepower, there's no reason.
No, no it is not. And I am a sucker that bought an iPad 3 so I am qualified to know.
I don’t agree that it’s the new iPad 3, but the chip is the one of the main reasons I didn’t upgrade to it as well. The battery on my S5 is getting annoyingly bad, and I would appreciate a lot of the quality of life upgrades on the Ultra, but there’s no point in spending $800 for a 2-year old chip when my Apple Watch is only 3 years old.
I mean, my SE 2020 isn't exactly slow and I'm not sure what more Apple would plan to push the watches to do in recent years with software.
Just because Apple was aggressively pushing to make watches more powerful for a while doesn't mean they plan to do that forever. The first gen watch was laggy and it actually mattered to have better performance at the time. I think this is a misunderstanding that the watch market is meant to be like the Mac/computer market just because it's still tech. It's supposed to be effecient and great at everything it can do, and perhaps right now the tech isn't improving at a rate that's cost effective for Apple to keep pushing that.
Oh, also, there's probably not any other watches out there that are more powerful/efficient.
Just because Apple was aggressively pushing to make watches more powerful for a while doesn't mean they plan to do that forever. The first gen watch was laggy and it actually mattered to have better performance at the time. I think this is a misunderstanding that the watch market is meant to be like the Mac/computer market just because it's still tech. It's supposed to be effecient and great at everything it can do, and perhaps right now the tech isn't improving at a rate that's cost effective for Apple to keep pushing that.
Oh, also, there's probably not any other watches out there that are more powerful/efficient.
Last edited:
I had a series 0 and now have a 5. I hesitate to spend that much on a device that will last me 3 or 4 years. I don't mind investing in a computer because I know it will last me a decade or more (from my '09 27" imac), but to spend AWU dollars on something that has proabably a 3-4 year lifespan is too much for me. Granted I am a school teacher that does very little outdoorsy, rugged exercise.
My friend bought one and let me try it out (I have a Nike 7). Meh. It's a nice device but not enough to make me dump a perfectly good 7, which is still more than sufficient for my bike riding.
A new chip would likely draw more power. I think Apple is very aware that device battery longevity is really important on the watch and it's already arguably too short compared to its competitors. Loading more sensors and a better CPU is a huge challenge for battery life.
You didn't make a logical argument for not getting the Ultra, in my opinion.
Unless you can show that the current chip would struggle to rightfully perform daily tasks as needed, I see no reason to say no to the watch just because of a chip that runs well and is more than capable.
It sounds to me like you went looking for an excuse to not get a watch that you really didn't want in the first place.
I have an AW6 and AWU. I use AW6 at home and Ultra during work abd workouts. I never felt that Ultra needs to be faster. It is way faster than Samsung galaxy watch I owned earlier. Apart from battery life, how a newer chip gonna help? We are not using Ultra to edit or convert photos or movies. It has great battery life and all apps I use open without any delay. The best thing is, I can sometimes leave my phone at home and still can be connected to the world without scrolling through Reels or shorts.
The iPad 3 was a very small CPU and GPU upgrade while completely doubling the screen resolution.
The doubled screen resolution caused the processor to be constantly taxed, so naturally it would struggle and heat up.
This was a device that was trying to be pushed as a gaming device, an every day web browsing and such device, and it would last for years. Applications were beginning to grow more and more demanding as time went on, and it just couldn’t keep up with the times.
The Apple Watch on other hand is basically the opposite story.
Ever since it went 64-bit with the series 4, it’s been barely challenged.
You’re not usually using anything CPU intensive, you usually don’t have tons of graphics flying across the screen, you’re not doing much heavy gaming or anything that’s really over-taxing the thing.
It spends the majority of the time on the watch face, and the rest of it having music played or measuring workouts.
At the point it’s at right now, caring about a new processor in your Apple Watch is like caring about a new processor in your iPod Nano.
No one cared about the specifications of those classic iPods because no matter what it could do what you wanted.
And I don’t see Apple dropping OS support for any of these watches for a really long time.
The doubled screen resolution caused the processor to be constantly taxed, so naturally it would struggle and heat up.
This was a device that was trying to be pushed as a gaming device, an every day web browsing and such device, and it would last for years. Applications were beginning to grow more and more demanding as time went on, and it just couldn’t keep up with the times.
The Apple Watch on other hand is basically the opposite story.
Ever since it went 64-bit with the series 4, it’s been barely challenged.
You’re not usually using anything CPU intensive, you usually don’t have tons of graphics flying across the screen, you’re not doing much heavy gaming or anything that’s really over-taxing the thing.
It spends the majority of the time on the watch face, and the rest of it having music played or measuring workouts.
At the point it’s at right now, caring about a new processor in your Apple Watch is like caring about a new processor in your iPod Nano.
No one cared about the specifications of those classic iPods because no matter what it could do what you wanted.
And I don’t see Apple dropping OS support for any of these watches for a really long time.
The Series 6 used the S6 SiP with 64-bit dual-core processor.
The Ultra uses the S8 SiP with 64-bit dual-core processor.
How are these the same chip?
Has the watch ever been sluggish in any meaningful way?
Because if it has, I haven't noticed it.
Because if it has, I haven't noticed it.
SIP refers to the CPU and associated chipset. Allegedly it‘s the same CPU but with different supporting chips. Perhaps power management and communications, for example.
Where’s the huge price jump? Ti for ti, the ultra is cheaper than the S6 ti
I don’t agree that S8 chip is blazing fast and I think Apple should have already upgraded it in terms of CPU. I am using an Apple Watch Series 8 and although it has less loading animations than my brother’s Series 5, there are still loading animations. You can rarely come across with those screens while opening an App. I would expect 0 loading screens. I also remember at least one lag when I received a notification. Also it still takes so much time to install an update.
I wonder how Apple will drop the update support for Apple Watch Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8 since they have all same RAM and CPU. I don’t expect all of them to stop at the same WatchOS version and this makes me think there might be an upgraded RAM in Series 8 and Ultra like 2 GB.
I wonder how Apple will drop the update support for Apple Watch Series 6, Series 7 and Series 8 since they have all same RAM and CPU. I don’t expect all of them to stop at the same WatchOS version and this makes me think there might be an upgraded RAM in Series 8 and Ultra like 2 GB.
Last edited:
I'm usually pretty critical of Apple's weird price hikes, but it does make sense to me in this specific case.
Remember when everyone was speculating how the Ultra would start above $1000 and were pleasantly surprised to see it start at $799. Considering how much they had to prioritise the external build (which is arguably the most important part of a rugged outdoor watch) coupled with the insane chip shortage, I'd say they picked the right balance of compromise between internals vs. externals while not making the watch completely inaccessible.
I do see your point though and your decision is a perfectly logical one as a consumer deciding where their money goes.
Remember when everyone was speculating how the Ultra would start above $1000 and were pleasantly surprised to see it start at $799. Considering how much they had to prioritise the external build (which is arguably the most important part of a rugged outdoor watch) coupled with the insane chip shortage, I'd say they picked the right balance of compromise between internals vs. externals while not making the watch completely inaccessible.
I do see your point though and your decision is a perfectly logical one as a consumer deciding where their money goes.
On the contrary, moving to a smaller process (e.g., from the Watch's current 7nm process to a 4nm process) would allow the watch to either be faster and use less power, or remain the same speed but use much less power. Apple hasn't used the 7nm process in their A-series chips since the A13 - the A16 Bionic, for example, uses a 5nm process (marketed as "4nm" so maybe closer to 4nm than 5nm) and the M3 chips are supposedly going to use a 3nm process - meanwhile the Apple Watch Ultra is stuck with 2018-level tech, with a SIP manufactured using a 7nm process.
So if battery life was really that important to Apple, there are much more elegant ways to increase it, rather than simply making the watch massive, with a huge battery. And that's the point.
Ultra isn’t laggy or slow. While a chip would be welcomed you aren’t using anything performance wise on a watch
Couldn't agree more! Two-day or more battery is what I want from Apple Watch at this stage.