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

2 types of people.
1) No point buying now, there’ll be a new chip soon that’s better.

2) Don’t buy new designs wait for them to mature and bugs be resolved

Stick them together and nobody will buy anything.

So make your choice, buy something that works well now, or be an early adopter of something more unknown
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki and TwistedGleam
  • Like
Reactions: madrigal77
Apple has basically no competition in wearables now plus I wonder just exactly how much gains there are to be made with new SOC anyway.

Its probably no big deal. They got so many devices running this essentially same SOC that they are basically pot committed to supporting it well for a long time.
 
Lihp8270 said:
2 types of people.
1) No point buying now, there’ll be a new chip soon that’s better.

2) Don’t buy new designs wait for them to mature and bugs be resolved

Stick them together and nobody will buy anything.

So make your choice, buy something that works well now, or be an early adopter of something more unknown
Click to expand...

These devices aren't cheap... If I had a S6 or later, I would not have purchased the Ultra. In fact, if my S5 didn't have a battery issue (won't last a day), I probably would have waited until Ultra 2 (because I would assume a new CPU is coming).

When you spend this kind of money on a device, that has a build in end-of-life date (unlike a mechanical or quarts watch), don't you want to be able to get the most amount of time you can?

I would prefer to get a model watch with the first year of a new CPU rather than a model with the last run of that CPU... Just because I know that support is likely to end all at the same time.
 
My AW6 used to stutter, ever so slightly, when swiping through watch faces. I don’t see this with my AWU.

We know the CPU is the same as S6 and S7 and it’s clocked the same.

But what do we know about the rest of the SIP? Memory type and bandwidth could make a difference, as could the GPU.

I cannot find any credible information on those parts of the SIP since the S6. But we do know they have been periodically updated in prior models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srknpower
Tyler O'Bannon said:
Apple Watch package has a lot more to do with hardware to power the software features rather than CPU and GPU and benchmarks
Click to expand...
True. But moving to a more modern SIP, manufactured using an advanced (3nm or 4nm, rather than 7nm!) process would allow not only for smoother animations and faster transitions between apps, but greatly improved battery life.
 
mavis said:
True. But moving to a more modern SIP, manufactured using an advanced (3nm or 4nm, rather than 7nm!) process would allow not only for smoother animations and faster transitions between apps, but greatly improved battery life.
Click to expand...
I have the series 6, which has the same CPU as the 7 and 8. I just pressed around through several apps, and everything is pretty darn fast. And I’m an annual iPhone upgrader, albeit I passed on the iPhone 14 PM for the first time in 7 years. I really think the CPU and GPU run the watch at almost peak performance.

I think the biggest thing to be gained in the next package is efficiency. If they go to even 5nm it will make a difference. If they go to 4 or even 3, they will have a ton of headroom to eke out more performance and possibly have the best battery life yet. Especially on the ultra. But, they also may reserve that for M series and top end A series. Watch seems like it’s about to be at the back of the line of process capacity. They will dedicate 3nm to Mac and iPhone, and that will probably use all the capacity they can get.

Maybe we will get 5nm on watch next time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mavis
GuruZac said:
Yep. With a bigger display, much larger and longer battery life, and unique features on the Ultra, for $50 less than Series 6 Ti.
Click to expand...
The 8 is $400 and the ultra is $800 which very minimal upgrade difference besides battery. My series 6 Apple Watch charges from 0% to full in about 15 mins. It’d negotiable. I mean what are people doing wearing a watch 24/7 365 lol

Edit: I mean maybe if they gave a slue of new Watch faces on the ultra or anything like that.

The watch faces have been pretty disappointing to say the least on all models.
 
Tyler O'Bannon said:
I have the series 6, which has the same CPU as the 7 and 8. I just pressed around through several apps, and everything is pretty darn fast. And I’m an annual iPhone upgrader, albeit I passed on the iPhone 14 PM for the first time in 7 years. I really think the CPU and GPU run the watch at almost peak performance.

I think the biggest thing to be gained in the next package is efficiency. If they go to even 5nm it will make a difference. If they go to 4 or even 3, they will have a ton of headroom to eke out more performance and possibly have the best battery life yet. Especially on the ultra. But, they also may reserve that for M series and top end A series. Watch seems like it’s about to be at the back of the line of process capacity. They will dedicate 3nm to Mac and iPhone, and that will probably use all the capacity they can get.

Maybe we will get 5nm on watch next time?
Click to expand...
Yeah, my only real performance issue is likely just a long-standing software bug. When you open the activity app, it always stutters before it starts the ring animation. And if your rings circle around several times, that animation always stutters as well. Happened on my S6 and still happens on my S7. They've tried to simply hide it by changing the opening view from the rings to the detailed breakdown, underneath. 🙄 But the animation stutter is still there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler O'Bannon
skywalkerr69 said:
The 8 is $400 and the ultra is $800 which very minimal upgrade difference besides battery. My series 6 Apple Watch charges from 0% to full in about 15 mins. It’d negotiable. I mean what are people doing wearing a watch 24/7 365 lol

Edit: I mean maybe if they gave a slue of new Watch faces on the ultra or anything like that.

The watch faces have been pretty disappointing to say the least on all models.
Click to expand...

The S6 is around 90 minutes to fully charge. It’s not 15.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
I’m actually still on series 4 largely for this reason. Watch needs large performance upgrade to be as responsive as the phone in many tasks, not 20-30% uplift currently.
 
skywalkerr69 said:
Wear mine all day around 10% take a shower for 15 mins come out and it’s charged. Never been an issue
Click to expand...

so the story changes already :D

Nothing wrong with your charging strategy, but if it really is charging from 0% to 100% in 15 minutes it’s defective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigMcGuire
mavis said:
Yeah, my only real performance issue is likely just a long-standing software bug. When you open the activity app, it always stutters before it starts the ring animation. And if your rings circle around several times, that animation always stutters as well. Happened on my S6 and still happens on my S7. They've tried to simply hide it by changing the opening view from the rings to the detailed breakdown, underneath. 🙄 But the animation stutter is still there.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that they changed the view, rather than optimizing the animation. I wonder if that is a good example of something that the current SiP isn’t fast enough to handle
 
skywalkerr69 said:
The 8 is $400 and the ultra is $800 which very minimal upgrade difference besides battery. My series 6 Apple Watch charges from 0% to full in about 15 mins. It’d negotiable. I mean what are people doing wearing a watch 24/7 365 lol

Edit: I mean maybe if they gave a slue of new Watch faces on the ultra or anything like that.

The watch faces have been pretty disappointing to say the least on all models.
Click to expand...

That’s not even remotely close to a reasonable comparison.

The $400 S8 is the smallest aluminum case with a glass face and no cellular connectivity.

The $800 Ultra is a large titanium case with a sapphire face and cellular connectivity.

The S8 with comparable specifications as the Ultra costs … the same $800 as the Ultra.

And, oh-by-the-way, the Ultra has a bigger battery and a bigger and brighter display and louder speakers and ...

What you’re doing is akin to complaining that a Lexus is more expensive than a Toyota, but you neglect to observe that a Toyota with the same trim level as the Lexus costs exactly the same as the Lexus. The only difference is that you can buy a Toyota with a lesser trim level.

And, contrary to your addended complaint, the Ultra has a new, exclusive watch face with more complications than on any other face, plus it comes with your choice of new exclusive-to-the-watch bands.

It’s perfectly fine if you’re not interested in all the upgrades the Ultra offers over the base S8 configuration, or if the new faces and bands aren’t to your taste. But to pretend that those upgrades are therefore worthless does nobody any favors — including you, as you present yourself in a very unflattering light when you do so.

Cheers,

b&
 
  • Like
Reactions: theotherphil, Putte_Kindh, Mr.C and 3 others
skywalkerr69 said:
The 8 is $400 and the ultra is $800 which very minimal upgrade difference besides battery. My series 6 Apple Watch charges from 0% to full in about 15 mins. It’d negotiable. I mean what are people doing wearing a watch 24/7 365 lol

Edit: I mean maybe if they gave a slue of new Watch faces on the ultra or anything like that.

The watch faces have been pretty disappointing to say the least on all models.
Click to expand...
If the main thing you're concerned about are new watch faces, then you clearly are not the target demographic for this watch anyway.
 
BenGoren said:
That’s not even remotely close to a reasonable comparison.

The $400 S8 is the smallest aluminum case with a glass face and no cellular connectivity.

The $800 Ultra is a large titanium case with a sapphire face and cellular connectivity.

The S8 with comparable specifications as the Ultra costs … the same $800 as the Ultra.

And, oh-by-the-way, the Ultra has a bigger battery and a bigger and brighter display and louder speakers and ...

What you’re doing is akin to complaining that a Lexus is more expensive than a Toyota, but you neglect to observe that a Toyota with the same trim level as the Lexus costs exactly the same as the Lexus. The only difference is that you can buy a Toyota with a lesser trim level.

And, contrary to your addended complaint, the Ultra has a new, exclusive watch face with more complications than on any other face, plus it comes with your choice of new exclusive-to-the-watch bands.

It’s perfectly fine if you’re not interested in all the upgrades the Ultra offers over the base S8 configuration, or if the new faces and bands aren’t to your taste. But to pretend that those upgrades are therefore worthless does nobody any favors — including you, as you present yourself in a very unflattering light when you do so.

Cheers,

b&
Click to expand...
The SS S8 is in effect a red herring, a decoy option. It makes the Ultra look like a comparatively good deal, but if the SS S8 did not exist, the Ultra would not look like such a good deal.

en.wikipedia.org

Decoy effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The smart way to evaluate two options is to only consider the two options, and completely disregard any third option. Else one can fall victim to the decoy effect.
 
Last edited:
How's the display on the Ultra guys? Looking at the pics, it doesn't look as sharp/clear as the ones on the series 7/8?
 
Howard2k said:
so the story changes already :D

Nothing wrong with your charging strategy, but if it really is charging from 0% to 100% in 15 minutes it’s defective.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree, I am calling BS on this or a faulty battery also. It must only be charging upto 40-50% of the original mah capacity. The S7 introduced the fast charging which cut the 0-100% charging time down from 90min to 45 min. It has never been 15 minutes, even the 10-100% he later changed his story too. The top 10-20% of any battery charge takes much longer than the 0-80% charge.
 
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