This is just a under clocked Snapdragon 429. Either they made to many or they are so cheap to make they just had more made for this re-naming. The 429 is from late 2018. So about 2 years old so easy to produce and little to no bugs.
Why do that when you can just keep letting Apple dominate smartwatches because its the only vendor with modern silicon designed for the product category?
There's nothing wrong with using 12nm for "power-critical" part. In fact I would prefer 12nm over 7nm. There's a reason literally nobody wants to use 10nm and below for those low-energy parts. And they never will. The leakage is just too high. Samsung's 10nm is probably fine because of it's lower density.
Apple didn't confirm it's S series process node, bot the first chip launched in 2015 was using 2013's 28HKMG. I would actually believe S5 is still on 12nm.
In fact ALL foundries offer ULP nodes based on larger "nm" nodes. Intel's 22FFL, TSMC's 22ULP/ULL and future 12FFC+ULL, Samsung's 28FDS and future 18FDS/8LPU, GloFo's 22FDX-ULL, UMC's 22uLP
These are ALL 2019 and beyond processes. None of them went below 10nm, the most aggressive is Samsung who labels 8LPU (still part of their 10nm platform) as ULP.
So are they targeting the older tech (process and CPU arch) for low cost and lack of market, or are they going there for something like...? Low leakage? Maturity?
Qualcomm has thrown in the towel on warables. Low volume and low margin for them compared to smartphone, tablet, and 2-in-1 SOCs. They make their money on their wireless technology and patents and have carved out a monopoly in the high-end Android SOC space for every manufacturer except Huawei. They have no reason to throw the best cores and latest lithography at this chip because there is no incentive for them to spend the money on it.
ARM Cortex-A55 was launched in 2017. According to Wikipedia: "The Cortex-A55 serves as the successor of the ARM Cortex-A53, designed to improve performance and energy efficiency over the A53" Why on Earth would they not use that design? And just as confounding, smartwatches are starving for efficiency more than smartphones let alone desktop processors, all of which have been benefiting from 7nm for at least a year, so why won't those smartwatch processors be manufactured using at least 7nm?
Qualcomm probably sees Android Wear platform as very small marketshare, Apple conquered the wearable by more than 50% I think. 7nm is definitely not making to the Wear, they want a lot of margin, 7nm would be detrimental to that idea plus wear devices I don't know how long they last, phones are 2years tops.
android wear stuff was haing horrible battery life (like 4h) so it was dead on arrival. now that there will be a chance for full day usage, it accually can make sense. but in here smart bands that expand phone cappabilites + andorid is the majority, not the standalone androwear stuff.
The problem that Android users won’t face is the cost. When the average Android phone costs less than $240 around the world, it’s hard to expect people to buy a full featured smartwatch that costs the same, or even more for better models. That’s a major reason it failed.
When the Motorola 360 first came out, posters on Arstechnica raved about it. Even though it looked terrible, and really cheap, with the stamped case, and cut off screen, they were saying how it was the most beautiful watch they’d ever seen. But I’m willing to bet that almost none of them bought one, or any later models from anyone. It was over $300.
It seems too little, too late. This chip still can’t compete with the latest Samsung chips for their own watches, much less Apple’s chips for theirs. I’d be willing to bet that if Apple were able to have their watch be completely independent of the iPhone, and they’ve been working towards that goal over the years, it would still outsell AndroidWear with Android buyers, since the least expensive Watch is $179, and lower on some sales. No full featured AndroidWear watch could match that.
You'd be so naive thinking 7nm is power efficient at all performance nodes. 7nm is only more power efficient at higher frequencies. At lower performance, LEAKAGE becomes dominant. 7nm would suck running at low frequencies.
In case you hadn't notice the very first Apple S1 launched in 2015 was using 2013's 28HKMG because 28nm was optimised for low leakage by then. Intel did something similar with 22FFL which is a relaxed, ultra low leakage version of their 14nm.
Erm, no, because you'd be able to hit a higher frequency you only need to turbo for shorter, so the watch will feel more responsive while going into idle sooner, it will result in a net saving.
Most of the leakage problems at 7nm are not that bad, assuming you were looking at 2016/2017 papers to base your opinion off of?
wrong assumption about frequencies. while higher frequencies is nice most of the time and for most uses the watch does not need to have higher frequencies. the aim with a wearable is to have the lowest power consumption ALL the time so it can have battery life for days if not weeks. an ultra low power optimized process node is designed for such uses. currently there are no such process for 7nm transistors and no planes. while it might be possible to create such process, current leakage is a known issue with smaller transistors features.
I'm based off the fact that NO FOUNDRY has yet announced any plan to go below 10nm with their ULP/ULL processes. That means you won't see any in the next 3 years.
The problem IS idle, leakage makes it ridiculously not worth it.
If you are so well-informed, why don't you go and help TSMC design N7ULL/ULP? Their current best offering is N28ULP/ULL, and N22(ULP) is probably in risk production stage.
Also TSMC disagrees with you by developing 22ULP and 12FFC+ULL, 22ULP only entered mass production in 2019 or later considering risk production was Q4 2018.
22ULP from TSMC, 22FFL from Intel, 22FDX-ULL from GloFo are the leading ultra low power solutions, notice the trend?
You're linking for ultra low power, smart watches do not fall into that category yet as ULL is probably still a little too weak.
You'd use ULP in IoT for things like a sensor for room temperature, etc. where it's never something that needs to be able to complete something quickly, like responding as fast as possible to a user's touch input on a watch and driving a graphical display that's constantly changing.
This is such great news! I cannot stand iOS but am so reliant on my Apple watch I can't switch back to Android. I tried out a gen 5 fossil watch and it is really close to being sufficient, and I actually get about the same battery life as my apple watch 4 LTE (fossil doesn't have cell service). This update, while mediocre, will at least be enough to use wearOS.
"some of Qualcomm’s customers have ideas for smartwatch products which would deploy two cameras"
Smartwatch products? Or IoT products that would use this SoC? I still don't see how camera on a Smartwatch makes sense. It's really difficult to twist your wrist into a useful angle for almost any use case you can imagine. Certainly not taking normal photos, but even QR codes is tough, and while you can imagine a video call, try it and you'll see that - your wrist/arm hurts like hell after ten seconds or so - the image shakes like crazy
Watch on cameraI just don't see. But companies like Arlo or Wyze using a Watch SoC for their cameras. Or a company like Ecobee using a mini camera in the thermostat and even the sensor units (to track who is in which room, for finer gradations of temperature management), that I could see.
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
33 Comments
Back to Article
unrulycow - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
This is a nice improvement over the terrible last gen, but they should have used A55 cores to at least pretend to be a modern chipMarlin1975 - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
This is just a under clocked Snapdragon 429. Either they made to many or they are so cheap to make they just had more made for this re-naming.The 429 is from late 2018. So about 2 years old so easy to produce and little to no bugs.
Frenetic Pony - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link
Why do that when you can just keep letting Apple dominate smartwatches because its the only vendor with modern silicon designed for the product category?Jon Tseng - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
Surely a typo. For a moment I thought you were saying Qualcomm were launching a power-critical 2020 consumer part on 12nm!Oh...
dotjaz - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
There's nothing wrong with using 12nm for "power-critical" part. In fact I would prefer 12nm over 7nm. There's a reason literally nobody wants to use 10nm and below for those low-energy parts. And they never will. The leakage is just too high. Samsung's 10nm is probably fine because of it's lower density.Apple didn't confirm it's S series process node, bot the first chip launched in 2015 was using 2013's 28HKMG. I would actually believe S5 is still on 12nm.
dotjaz - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
Or even better, 22nm.dotjaz - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
In fact ALL foundries offer ULP nodes based on larger "nm" nodes. Intel's 22FFL, TSMC's 22ULP/ULL and future 12FFC+ULL, Samsung's 28FDS and future 18FDS/8LPU, GloFo's 22FDX-ULL, UMC's 22uLPThese are ALL 2019 and beyond processes. None of them went below 10nm, the most aggressive is Samsung who labels 8LPU (still part of their 10nm platform) as ULP.
jeremyshaw - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
So are they targeting the older tech (process and CPU arch) for low cost and lack of market, or are they going there for something like...? Low leakage? Maturity?WithoutWeakness - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
Qualcomm has thrown in the towel on warables. Low volume and low margin for them compared to smartphone, tablet, and 2-in-1 SOCs. They make their money on their wireless technology and patents and have carved out a monopoly in the high-end Android SOC space for every manufacturer except Huawei. They have no reason to throw the best cores and latest lithography at this chip because there is no incentive for them to spend the money on it.MrSpadge - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
Cost is surely a reason.dotjaz - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
Nobody in the wearable space would go below 10nm. It's just not worth it.ZoZo - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
ARM Cortex-A55 was launched in 2017. According to Wikipedia: "The Cortex-A55 serves as the successor of the ARM Cortex-A53, designed to improve performance and energy efficiency over the A53"Why on Earth would they not use that design?
And just as confounding, smartwatches are starving for efficiency more than smartphones let alone desktop processors, all of which have been benefiting from 7nm for at least a year, so why won't those smartwatch processors be manufactured using at least 7nm?
ZoZo - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
The Apple Watch can sleep soundly for another while.Is there any competition on the horizon?
Quantumz0d - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
Qualcomm probably sees Android Wear platform as very small marketshare, Apple conquered the wearable by more than 50% I think. 7nm is definitely not making to the Wear, they want a lot of margin, 7nm would be detrimental to that idea plus wear devices I don't know how long they last, phones are 2years tops.deil - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link
android wear stuff was haing horrible battery life (like 4h) so it was dead on arrival.now that there will be a chance for full day usage, it accually can make sense.
but in here smart bands that expand phone cappabilites + andorid is the majority, not the standalone androwear stuff.
melgross - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link
The problem that Android users won’t face is the cost. When the average Android phone costs less than $240 around the world, it’s hard to expect people to buy a full featured smartwatch that costs the same, or even more for better models. That’s a major reason it failed.When the Motorola 360 first came out, posters on Arstechnica raved about it. Even though it looked terrible, and really cheap, with the stamped case, and cut off screen, they were saying how it was the most beautiful watch they’d ever seen. But I’m willing to bet that almost none of them bought one, or any later models from anyone. It was over $300.
It seems too little, too late. This chip still can’t compete with the latest Samsung chips for their own watches, much less Apple’s chips for theirs. I’d be willing to bet that if Apple were able to have their watch be completely independent of the iPhone, and they’ve been working towards that goal over the years, it would still outsell AndroidWear with Android buyers, since the least expensive Watch is $179, and lower on some sales. No full featured AndroidWear watch could match that.
dotjaz - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
You'd be so naive thinking 7nm is power efficient at all performance nodes. 7nm is only more power efficient at higher frequencies. At lower performance, LEAKAGE becomes dominant. 7nm would suck running at low frequencies.In case you hadn't notice the very first Apple S1 launched in 2015 was using 2013's 28HKMG because 28nm was optimised for low leakage by then. Intel did something similar with 22FFL which is a relaxed, ultra low leakage version of their 14nm.
RSAUser - Saturday, July 11, 2020 - link
Erm, no, because you'd be able to hit a higher frequency you only need to turbo for shorter, so the watch will feel more responsive while going into idle sooner, it will result in a net saving.Most of the leakage problems at 7nm are not that bad, assuming you were looking at 2016/2017 papers to base your opinion off of?
Eliadbu - Sunday, July 12, 2020 - link
wrong assumption about frequencies. while higher frequencies is nice most of the time and for most uses the watch does not need to have higher frequencies. the aim with a wearable is to have the lowest power consumption ALL the time so it can have battery life for days if not weeks. an ultra low power optimized process node is designed for such uses. currently there are no such process for 7nm transistors and no planes. while it might be possible to create such process, current leakage is a known issue with smaller transistors features.dotjaz - Monday, July 13, 2020 - link
I'm based off the fact that NO FOUNDRY has yet announced any plan to go below 10nm with their ULP/ULL processes. That means you won't see any in the next 3 years.The problem IS idle, leakage makes it ridiculously not worth it.
If you are so well-informed, why don't you go and help TSMC design N7ULL/ULP? Their current best offering is N28ULP/ULL, and N22(ULP) is probably in risk production stage.
dotjaz - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
Also TSMC disagrees with you by developing 22ULP and 12FFC+ULL, 22ULP only entered mass production in 2019 or later considering risk production was Q4 2018.22ULP from TSMC, 22FFL from Intel, 22FDX-ULL from GloFo are the leading ultra low power solutions, notice the trend?
https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/tech...
https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/tech...
dotjaz - Friday, July 10, 2020 - link
Forgot about Samsung, their version is 28FDS/18FDS and 8LPU as ultra low power solution. Again, nothing below 10nm (8LPU is still 10nm)RSAUser - Saturday, July 11, 2020 - link
You're linking for ultra low power, smart watches do not fall into that category yet as ULL is probably still a little too weak.You'd use ULP in IoT for things like a sensor for room temperature, etc. where it's never something that needs to be able to complete something quickly, like responding as fast as possible to a user's touch input on a watch and driving a graphical display that's constantly changing.
CaptainElwood - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
This is such great news! I cannot stand iOS but am so reliant on my Apple watch I can't switch back to Android. I tried out a gen 5 fossil watch and it is really close to being sufficient, and I actually get about the same battery life as my apple watch 4 LTE (fossil doesn't have cell service). This update, while mediocre, will at least be enough to use wearOS.Makaveli - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
Has hell frozen over they finally updated the SOC on these!name99 - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
"some of Qualcomm’s customers have ideas for smartwatch products which would deploy two cameras"Smartwatch products? Or IoT products that would use this SoC?
I still don't see how camera on a Smartwatch makes sense. It's really difficult to twist your wrist into a useful angle for almost any use case you can imagine. Certainly not taking normal photos, but even QR codes is tough, and while you can imagine a video call, try it and you'll see that
- your wrist/arm hurts like hell after ten seconds or so
- the image shakes like crazy
Watch on cameraI just don't see.
But companies like Arlo or Wyze using a Watch SoC for their cameras. Or a company like Ecobee using a mini camera in the thermostat and even the sensor units (to track who is in which room, for finer gradations of temperature management), that I could see.
iampivot - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link
The dual camera support is probably for use with google glass type devices.name99 - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link
Good analysis! Yeah, that makes sense.trivik12 - Tuesday, June 30, 2020 - link
I am curious as to what chipset Samsung will use for GW3. I hope that is A55 based and lowest possible leakage process.shabby - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link
Is qualcomm comparing a 2012 soc to a 2011 soc in their graphs? lolmelgross - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link
Well, they don’t want to compare it to Apple’s latest, or even Samsung’s.melgross - Wednesday, July 1, 2020 - link
As ArsTechnica has said, these chips are coming out now that the market for them has died. Good timing.Fritzkier - Sunday, July 12, 2020 - link
Classic Qualcomm flexing out their monopoly power.