[I Can Be Your Hero]

https://www.androidcentral.com/weara...rocessor-rumor

"Pixel Watch is powered by Samsung’s Exynos 9110 chipset, which first debuted in 2018 alongside the original Galaxy Watch."

If this is true, then this is lunacy. A 4 year old processor in the 2022 Pixel Watch would leave it pretty much dead in the water. The enormous bezels were already disappointing, but now hearing that it's got such an old, outdated and inefficent processor, when newer processors have been available just doesn't make sense.

Of course people will still defend it and claim it's not a big deal - how would we feel if the Pixel 7 had Snapdragon 845 - the same processor in the Pixel 3?

The Pixel Watch is also reported to have a 300mah battery. The 2018 Galaxy Watch had a 472mah battery.

[mustang7757]

I don't think a older processor is big deal on a watch compared to a phone

[I Can Be Your Hero]

I don't think a older processor is big deal on a watch compared to a phone

I think it's a bigger deal. It's a smaller device with a smaller battery with more contstraints around heat - efficiency is extremely important.

It's possibly going to have an already old processor with a small battery. That's not a recipe for a good smartwatch.

[mustang7757]

I think it's a bigger deal. It's a smaller device with a smaller battery with more contstraints around heat - efficiency is extremely important.

It's possibly going to have an already old processor with a small battery. That's not a recipe for a good smartwatch.

If that can be all accomplished with older processor i dont see a problem plus Google knows how to optimize , but we see .

[I Can Be Your Hero]

If that can be all accomplished with older processor i dont see a problem plus Google knows how to optimize , but we see .

Looking at the optimisation of the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro and the plethora of issues those phones have had, I'm not confident in their optimisation abilities.

[mustang7757]

Looking at the optimisation of the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro and the plethora of issues those phones have had, I'm not confident in their optimisation abilities.

I personally didn't have any major issues on my pixel 6 pro and would recommend it to friends and family.

[Golfdriver97]

What is the chip in the watch? I found 2 different articles claiming 2 different SoCs.

This one lists Exynos: https://www.phonearena.com/news/pixe...watch_id138890

While the link in the 1st post says Qualcomm.

[Golfdriver97]

Even after posting my last post, there haven't been too many leaps in Desktop CPUs. AMD had a hard time cracking 10nm in the last few years, and the last I knew, Intel is working on a 10++(maybe even ++++ cause it's Intel).

These days I don't see much of a 'lag' between chipsets of 5 years.

[mustang7757]

Even after posting my last post, there haven't been too many leaps in Desktop CPUs. AMD had a hard time cracking 10nm in the last few years, and the last I knew, Intel is working on a 10++(maybe even ++++ cause it's Intel).

These days I don't see much of a 'lag' between chipsets of 5 years.

Yeah they say every year chip was better then the last for battery , efficiency for me last 2 to 3 years I don't see that .

[Golfdriver97]

Yeah they say every year chip was better then the last for battery , efficiency for me last 2 to 3 years I don't see that .

I know my points are aimed at desktop CPUs, but that is what I know better between the two. But, even recent generation CPUs aren't showing a lot of year over year improvements. Gamers' Nexus does a lot of CPU benchmarks and when they compare numerous CPUs, the performance is about the same. Sure, there is improvement, but not like it was back in 2012.

[L0n3N1nja]

Even after posting my last post, there haven't been too many leaps in Desktop CPUs. AMD had a hard time cracking 10nm in the last few years, and the last I knew, Intel is working on a 10++(maybe even ++++ cause it's Intel).

These days I don't see much of a 'lag' between chipsets of 5 years.

AMD never had a problem cracking 10nm, they don't manufacture their own processors nor have they released a CPU built on 10nm. They went from 12nm manufactured by Global Foundries to 7nm manufactured by TSMC.

Intel got stuck on 14nm for around 5 years because they couldn't get problems with their 10nm figured out. They've used 10nm for a couple years on some mobile cpus but just brought it to desktop.

[Golfdriver97]

AMD never had a problem cracking 10nm, they don't manufacture their own processors nor have they released a CPU built on 10nm. They went from 12nm manufactured by Global Foundries to 7nm manufactured by TSMC.

Intel got stuck on 14nm for around 5 years because they couldn't get problems with their 10nm figured out. They've used 10nm for a couple years on some mobile cpus but just brought it to desktop.

I stand corrected. I was posting based on how AMD was on 28 nm for what seemed like the longest time. And I couldn't resist poking at Intel's marketing for adding a plus just to make things different.

[mustang7757]

I know my points are aimed at desktop CPUs, but that is what I know better between the two. But, even recent generation CPUs aren't showing a lot of year over year improvements. Gamers' Nexus does a lot of CPU benchmarks and when they compare numerous CPUs, the performance is about the same. Sure, there is improvement, but not like it was back in 2012.

I agree I've seen it with multiple devices I used over the years .

[I Can Be Your Hero]

What is the chip in the watch? I found 2 different articles claiming 2 different SoCs.

This one lists Exynos: https://www.phonearena.com/news/pixe...watch_id138890

While the link in the 1st post says Qualcomm.

The link in the OP says the watch will use the 2018 Samsung Exynos 9110. Not Qualcomm.

Even after posting my last post, there haven't been too many leaps in Desktop CPUs. AMD had a hard time cracking 10nm in the last few years, and the last I knew, Intel is working on a 10++(maybe even ++++ cause it's Intel).

These days I don't see much of a 'lag' between chipsets of 5 years.

Completely different. Desktop CPUs are extremely mature, have been around for many decades and have been iterated for a long time. They have access to continuous power and have less thermal requirements and have access to cooling accessories for them to perform better.

Smartwatches aren't like that. They haven't been around for that long, have very strict power requirements (otherwise the battery will die quickly) and has very strict thermal requirements, because they can't heat up to a point where it'll damage the components next to it or burn the users arm.

So the processor on a watch is very important. Newer processors will be faster and more battery efficient. Releasing a watch with a 2018 processor now just means that it's already 4 years old means the watch is already limited in its performance compared to other smartwatches on the market.

But we'll see how it stacks up to the Apple Watch.

[I Can Be Your Hero]

This sounds a little more promising:

https://9to5google.com/2022/05/20/pi...ocessor-specs/

The watch supposedly has a co-processor that'll offload some work (similar to how the new processor functions) and will have more storage (32gb) and more ram (possibly 2gb?) than any other WearOS smartwatch has had.

If these are true then that's a bit of a relief. The watch was sounding pretty sketchy from the previous leaks.