About this and the SmartWatch 3: these are both quad core smartwatches? Wouldn't dual core be better? Even the Neptune Pine was dual core and that thing was full Android. Or do these use less power/heat?
So, this is identical to the Sony watch: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8474/sony-announces-... ? I guess the 420 mA battery in the Sony is the same as the 1.4 Wh battery in the ASUS (1.4 Wh/ 3.7 V = 0.378 Ah)? What is the battery life in these watches? I'll guess: substantially less than 24 hours. It appears that they took an app note for a smartphone and used it for a watch.
It's obvious that we need a middle ground between the Cortex M4 and the Cortex A5/A7. I wonder if a MIPS design could perhaps slot in here? The M4 just doesn't quite have the grunt to run a full linux distro properly (I know it CAN, but you have to use uClinux, which brings a lot of issues) and then even the bottom end Cortex A series chips seem a little too heavy. Maybe someone just needs to make a 20/28nm SoC with a single-core Cortex A5 on it, run it about 800mhz-1ghz, put a very very modest GPU on there, and it really doesn't need too much else. BT, maybe wifi, some ram and storage, and you should be set. I mean it seems like all these Quad A7 designs are coming out because there just aren't any other decent SoC options out there. I hope at least someone is working on a 'baby soc' -- I mean there is obviously a market for it, and OEM's will probably buy it if it was available.
I think the entire platform is way too powerful. Like, imagine having the power of a Nintendo DS strapped to your wrist. That thing could run a clock on two screens for just over a day. Take out one screen and the buttons, and use a modern process node, and you'd be able to shrink the battery appreciably...
Anyway, look at the specs: 4 MB RAM; dual-core ARM, at 33 and 67 MHz; fairly small OS, but capable of loading media players and relatively intensive games. The only problem is that you'd have to program directly for that hardware, which is where Android Wear comes in. But they're aiming too high, and Wear would never run on that kind of hardware. Still, once we've got that kind of thing, it's just a matter of getting Bluetooth or a specialized wi-fi (think wireless mice) to work without too much power consumption.
A 100MHz processor would be plenty. The Nintendo DS's main core was 67 MHz. (Now there's a device that could last a full day, too!)
Honestly, I think we're losing the art of low-power systems. I'm sure there's middle ground between the year-long lives of the dumb watches and the day-long lives of smartwatches. Just what capabilities can we add to watches without draining the battery? Time-sliced Bluetooth? e-Ink (or even better transflective LCDs)? 64 MB RAM?
I don't think 100Mhz would be plenty for anything like this. The SD400 is popping up a lot because it is the the best performing SoC for this form factor. I would say around this time next year we will see the for SoCs that are built for wearables, which is to say very small dual-core dies with possibly scaled back GPUs. I can't see CPU frequency going up unless some new function is found that no one has yet thought of.
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
12 Comments
Back to Article
nandnandnand - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
About this and the SmartWatch 3: these are both quad core smartwatches? Wouldn't dual core be better? Even the Neptune Pine was dual core and that thing was full Android. Or do these use less power/heat?smorebuds - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
If I remember correctly, Anand reviewed the LG/Samsung watches with snapdragon 400s and concluded that only 2 cores were active anyway.nandnandnand - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
Thanks. I look forward to a future of holographic, 640-core, 1 PB RRAM uberwatches.55Tan - Tuesday, December 9, 2014 - link
There are a number of higher rated smartwatches, I recommend seeing http://www.topreport.org/wearable/ among others.PICman - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
So, this is identical to the Sony watch: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8474/sony-announces-... ? I guess the 420 mA battery in the Sony is the same as the 1.4 Wh battery in the ASUS (1.4 Wh/ 3.7 V = 0.378 Ah)? What is the battery life in these watches? I'll guess: substantially less than 24 hours. It appears that they took an app note for a smartphone and used it for a watch.PrayForDeath - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
"ASUS claims that the internal 1.4Wh battery will get a user through the day"Through the day? ONE day? I won't consider buying a smart watch until they make them last for at least a month. I'm not charging my watch every day
Brandon Chester - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
Yeah for the record when I wrote that I thought to myself "I think that's about 1/7th where I would need it to be."extide - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
It's obvious that we need a middle ground between the Cortex M4 and the Cortex A5/A7. I wonder if a MIPS design could perhaps slot in here? The M4 just doesn't quite have the grunt to run a full linux distro properly (I know it CAN, but you have to use uClinux, which brings a lot of issues) and then even the bottom end Cortex A series chips seem a little too heavy. Maybe someone just needs to make a 20/28nm SoC with a single-core Cortex A5 on it, run it about 800mhz-1ghz, put a very very modest GPU on there, and it really doesn't need too much else. BT, maybe wifi, some ram and storage, and you should be set. I mean it seems like all these Quad A7 designs are coming out because there just aren't any other decent SoC options out there. I hope at least someone is working on a 'baby soc' -- I mean there is obviously a market for it, and OEM's will probably buy it if it was available.tuxRoller - Wednesday, September 3, 2014 - link
I don't think the bottleneck is the CPU. The combination of screen and radio would, I imagine, be the real culprits.mkozakewich - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
I think the entire platform is way too powerful. Like, imagine having the power of a Nintendo DS strapped to your wrist. That thing could run a clock on two screens for just over a day. Take out one screen and the buttons, and use a modern process node, and you'd be able to shrink the battery appreciably...Anyway, look at the specs: 4 MB RAM; dual-core ARM, at 33 and 67 MHz; fairly small OS, but capable of loading media players and relatively intensive games. The only problem is that you'd have to program directly for that hardware, which is where Android Wear comes in. But they're aiming too high, and Wear would never run on that kind of hardware. Still, once we've got that kind of thing, it's just a matter of getting Bluetooth or a specialized wi-fi (think wireless mice) to work without too much power consumption.
mkozakewich - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
A 100MHz processor would be plenty. The Nintendo DS's main core was 67 MHz. (Now there's a device that could last a full day, too!)Honestly, I think we're losing the art of low-power systems. I'm sure there's middle ground between the year-long lives of the dumb watches and the day-long lives of smartwatches. Just what capabilities can we add to watches without draining the battery? Time-sliced Bluetooth? e-Ink (or even better transflective LCDs)? 64 MB RAM?
jordanclock - Monday, September 8, 2014 - link
I don't think 100Mhz would be plenty for anything like this. The SD400 is popping up a lot because it is the the best performing SoC for this form factor. I would say around this time next year we will see the for SoCs that are built for wearables, which is to say very small dual-core dies with possibly scaled back GPUs. I can't see CPU frequency going up unless some new function is found that no one has yet thought of.