Interesting, given that Apple Watch is still rocking a 28nm ARMv7 core. (This is marked as the APL0778 die, which some have interpreted to mean that it's an Apple designed core. Perhaps, but I don't regard the matter as settled either way --- it could equally likely be a standard ARM core on an Apple SoC.)
Point is, I'm surprised Samsung didn't make a big deal about their being first to a 64-bit watch. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that Apple Watch will go 64-bit this year [or early next year. maybe it's on an 18 month rather than 12 month schedule?] and that in the hoopla of the event we'll be told that the S3 has on it a 64-bit custom-designed Apple core, I'm guessing on 16 or 14nm, depending on if they go with TSMC or stick with Samsung.
(An obvious trajectory would be to use the A10 Zephyr small core as the BIG core for the watch, and add a really small 1-wide in-order non-speculative core as the low-power core, since they now have all the SW&OS support in place to handle switching between performance and low power cores.)
Still has pretty disappointing battery life, but at least it's /better/. ARM needs to hurry up with a A7/A53 successor (and Qualcomm/some other company needs to hurry up with 14nm chips - it seems Samsung doesn't really like selling their Exynos chips separately)
As a dual core A53 with a Cat4 LTE modem the 7270 is a significantly larger and more capable SOC than the 1200. Qualcomm apparently thinks a smart watch can be done with significantly less hardware than Samsung; that or they're going after applications closer to a screenless fitness tracker than a high end watch.
Qualcomm Wear 1xxx series is IOT. Think trackers (like the article states) or smart meters Qualcomm Wear 2xxx series is SmartWatch. Think the Samsung Gear comparison in other comments.
Ah, so 7270 is an A53, ARMv7. My bad. Thanks for the info. I couldn't find anything about it with a quick search, so I assumed based on the 7series that it was ARMv8.
From the previous Anandtech article on the release of the Wear 1100, that stat is the package size, not the die size.
At first this was my thought process: 79mm^2 actually seems pretty big -- A Core2Duo Wolfdale 3M is 82mm^2 @ 45nm and that clearly has a TON more compute, though no modem, transceiver, memory controller, or any form of GPU... and by searching for the size of a Cortex-A7 @ 28nm I found one source that stated it was about 0.5mm^2... So then I looked up Wear 1100 and it all made sense.
That’s a very interesting idea with the watches for the kids in China. I am new to this field of technology so I had never heard of NB standards. This seems to say it’s not coming to the US right now? https://www.link-labs.com/blog/3-reasons-you-shoul...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
Back to Article
MrSpadge - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
Networked technology attached to humans, manufactured by a company called BORGs? Where's Cpt. Picard to save us?logos7 - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
Emphasis on low cost and "kid watch" when I see they're still using a 28nm process. The new modem is a nice upgrade, though.DanNeely - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
Low end stuff tends to lag processes a lot to keep costs down. They just moved the 4xx series to 14nm. Maybe next year we'll see a watch SoC on 14.skavi - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
Gear S3 already uses the 14nm Exynos 7260.skavi - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
*7270name99 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Interesting, given that Apple Watch is still rocking a 28nm ARMv7 core.(This is marked as the APL0778 die, which some have interpreted to mean that it's an Apple designed core. Perhaps, but I don't regard the matter as settled either way --- it could equally likely be a standard ARM core on an Apple SoC.)
Point is, I'm surprised Samsung didn't make a big deal about their being first to a 64-bit watch. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that Apple Watch will go 64-bit this year [or early next year. maybe it's on an 18 month rather than 12 month schedule?] and that in the hoopla of the event we'll be told that the S3 has on it a 64-bit custom-designed Apple core, I'm guessing on 16 or 14nm, depending on if they go with TSMC or stick with Samsung.
(An obvious trajectory would be to use the A10 Zephyr small core as the BIG core for the watch, and add a really small 1-wide in-order non-speculative core as the low-power core, since they now have all the SW&OS support in place to handle switching between performance and low power cores.)
Mil0 - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
Still has pretty disappointing battery life, but at least it's /better/. ARM needs to hurry up with a A7/A53 successor (and Qualcomm/some other company needs to hurry up with 14nm chips - it seems Samsung doesn't really like selling their Exynos chips separately)WJMazepas - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
The Cortex A55 is the sucessor of A53 and it looks promising.And there is the A35 that should consume less than the A53
DanNeely - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
As a dual core A53 with a Cat4 LTE modem the 7270 is a significantly larger and more capable SOC than the 1200. Qualcomm apparently thinks a smart watch can be done with significantly less hardware than Samsung; that or they're going after applications closer to a screenless fitness tracker than a high end watch.brozono - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
Qualcomm Wear 1xxx series is IOT. Think trackers (like the article states) or smart metersQualcomm Wear 2xxx series is SmartWatch. Think the Samsung Gear comparison in other comments.
name99 - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
Ah, so 7270 is an A53, ARMv7. My bad. Thanks for the info.I couldn't find anything about it with a quick search, so I assumed based on the 7series that it was ARMv8.
MrCommunistGen - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
From the previous Anandtech article on the release of the Wear 1100, that stat is the package size, not the die size.At first this was my thought process:
79mm^2 actually seems pretty big -- A Core2Duo Wolfdale 3M is 82mm^2 @ 45nm and that clearly has a TON more compute, though no modem, transceiver, memory controller, or any form of GPU... and by searching for the size of a Cortex-A7 @ 28nm I found one source that stated it was about 0.5mm^2... So then I looked up Wear 1100 and it all made sense.
MrCommunistGen - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
I'm talking about the idea that 79mm^2 seems rather large for a mobile SoC. The comment was supposed to begin with that.That's what happens when you restructure your comment, don't reread it, then post it (and can't go back and edit it).
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
"From the previous Anandtech article on the release of the Wear 1100, that stat is the package size, not the die size."Correct, 79mm2 is the package size on the Wear 1200 as well. I originally said "chip", but I've gone ahead and clarified it in the article.
kreacher - Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - link
Disappointing to see no updates for the 2100 series, their smart watch flagship SoC is still on 28nm Cortex A7.cjcallanan - Thursday, June 29, 2017 - link
That’s a very interesting idea with the watches for the kids in China. I am new to this field of technology so I had never heard of NB standards. This seems to say it’s not coming to the US right now? https://www.link-labs.com/blog/3-reasons-you-shoul...