What benchmarks? Nobody has any yet, there aren't even details about which ARM core the S4 uses. Until those details come out, Apple astroturfers will spin the "twice as fast" angle as hard as they can. My take on it: IPC differs only slightly between current 32 bit and 64 bit ARM cores, but power draw is significantly higher for 64 bit cores. Or to put it simply, the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any. To work around this, Apple will redefine the length of the day.
64 bit on a watch? Does this thing access more than 2 GiB of addressable memory?
And ECG. There's no way in hell this thing is remotely certified (it's bloody hard to get a good reading from the wrist under ideal conditions never mind on a watch without wet silver chloride electrodes). That makes is not just useless but actively deceptive. Fitbit couldn't even manage heart rate (via pulse ox like tech which is way easier that far distal) without a class action lawsuit.
Isn't it disgusting how Apple employees get on here and mod down any comment critical of Apple's design mistakes? That doesn't turn a bad product into a good one, but it does tell you about Apple's corporate culture.
That's the point, for most use-cases things don't need to be faster...
So your point is, this has a faster processor even though it doesn't need to be faster? Um I think I get it, it's like the Emperor has no clothes right?
Some Apple employee with mod points hates the idea of Apple with no clothes? Maybe design a better product then.
And may I point out, Apple claims "up to" 18 hours. You can be sure it is less. Reality: if you have this watch then you need to charge it multiple times per day, and get used to wearing a brick for those times you forget. These guys have the right idea.
That's the point, for most use-cases things don't need to be faster...
So your point is, this has a faster processor even though it doesn't need to be faster? Um I think I get it, it's like the Emperor has no clothes right?
Up to 18 hours battery life? WTF was Apple thinking. And exactly who is going to buy the spin that 64 bits is more energy efficient than 32. Just read Apple's own claims. Other manufactures aiming at more than 24 hours runtime = Apple will lose more market share.
Not it isn't, and whatever small advantages it has come at the expense of more power-hungry transistors, at least twice as many for the ALU. An idiotic tradeoff for a watch. And I suppose, marketing has sent talking points around explaining why 64 is better than 32 that don't need to be right, they just need to sound good to an uncritical mind.
I don't see a whole lot in terms of technical specifications, this seems to be about it: "energy capacity 2-3X higher than conventional lithium-ion.". But according to this it just brings the specific energy into the range of Li-Po and Li-Sulphur. So why is this better?
Then you looked at it without understanding it. Do you seriously think you can out-optimize gcc's code generator? Do you even know how to use LEA for arithmetic?
Android owners voted Google's Pixel off the island mainly because of the price but also partly because of the lack of headphone jack. Samsung was smart enough to notice the blowback and include it for S9. Apple relies on mind control instead, which is apparently not too hard for the kind of fan they attract, so a bunch of them will gloss over that deficiency and put a pair of overpriced Beats phones on their credit card, most probably near its melting point. Life with Apple. Life with a pocketful of dongles.
Offtopic? More like, Apple employee with mod points, off their meds.
Android owners voted Google's Pixel off the island mainly because of the price but also partly because of the lack of headphone jack. Samsung was smart enough to notice the blowback and include it for S9. Apple relies on mind control instead, which is apparently not too hard for the kind of fan they attract, so a bunch of them will gloss over that deficiency and put a pair of overpriced Beats phones on their credit card, most probably near its melting point. Life with Apple. Life with a pocketful of dongles.
Who would spend more for headphones than they do on their gadgets?
Many people. Your headphones will long outlast your gadgets and superior audio quality doesn't come cheap. BTW, it's way easier to tell the difference between great and crap audio with headphones than it is with speakers. Partly because room acoustics don't come into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Support your argument, please, because slide 7 does not.
I bet that you can't name one modern chip design firm designing new 32 bit SOCs.
You lose. Qualcomm's latest smartwatch SoC uses Cortex A7, a 32 bit processor.
Presumably you don't wear it while you sleep.
Not this one, it doesn't give you that option.
What benchmarks? Nobody has any yet, there aren't even details about which ARM core the S4 uses. Until those details come out, Apple astroturfers will spin the "twice as fast" angle as hard as they can. My take on it: IPC differs only slightly between current 32 bit and 64 bit ARM cores, but power draw is significantly higher for 64 bit cores. Or to put it simply, the power draw penalty outweighs the IPC increase, if there actually any. To work around this, Apple will redefine the length of the day.
Firstly what.
64 bit on a watch? Does this thing access more than 2 GiB of addressable memory?
And ECG. There's no way in hell this thing is remotely certified (it's bloody hard to get a good reading from the wrist under ideal conditions never mind on a watch without wet silver chloride electrodes). That makes is not just useless but actively deceptive. Fitbit couldn't even manage heart rate (via pulse ox like tech which is way easier that far distal) without a class action lawsuit.
Isn't it disgusting how Apple employees get on here and mod down any comment critical of Apple's design mistakes? That doesn't turn a bad product into a good one, but it does tell you about Apple's corporate culture.
That's the point, for most use-cases things don't need to be faster...
So your point is, this has a faster processor even though it doesn't need to be faster? Um I think I get it, it's like the Emperor has no clothes right?
Some Apple employee with mod points hates the idea of Apple with no clothes? Maybe design a better product then.
And may I point out, Apple claims "up to" 18 hours. You can be sure it is less. Reality: if you have this watch then you need to charge it multiple times per day, and get used to wearing a brick for those times you forget. These guys have the right idea.
Give me a break, this watch doesn't even last a day by Apple's own claim. What did Apple figure out again? Maybe how to spin a day as not a day.
That's the point, for most use-cases things don't need to be faster...
So your point is, this has a faster processor even though it doesn't need to be faster? Um I think I get it, it's like the Emperor has no clothes right?
Yes but it's thinner while keeping the same battery life
Thinner while still being gigantic. Same battery life, which is still too little. Little wonder that Apple keeps losing share in this category.
64bit makes development more unified
So let me get this straight, Apple devs save some money while customers get a watch that won't make it through a day.
Up to 18 hours battery life? WTF was Apple thinking. And exactly who is going to buy the spin that 64 bits is more energy efficient than 32. Just read Apple's own claims. Other manufactures aiming at more than 24 hours runtime = Apple will lose more market share.
During our brief time with the Apple Watch Series 4, I can’t say I noticed it being all that much faster than before
64-bit ARM is vastly faster than 32-bit ARM
Not it isn't, and whatever small advantages it has come at the expense of more power-hungry transistors, at least twice as many for the ALU. An idiotic tradeoff for a watch. And I suppose, marketing has sent talking points around explaining why 64 is better than 32 that don't need to be right, they just need to sound good to an uncritical mind.
>64 bit is not just about memory, but other things also...
What things? That actually matter to a watch?
I don't see a whole lot in terms of technical specifications, this seems to be about it: "energy capacity 2-3X higher than conventional lithium-ion.". But according to this it just brings the specific energy into the range of Li-Po and Li-Sulphur. So why is this better?
And Microsoft promising not to leak your files or snoop in them. Oh wait, will they even promise that.
Microsoft... still evil. Not changed at all.
And Microsoft promising not to leak your files or snoop in them. Oh wait, will they even promise that.
Then you looked at it without understanding it. Do you seriously think you can out-optimize gcc's code generator? Do you even know how to use LEA for arithmetic?
He talked. Talk is cheap.
Android owners voted Google's Pixel off the island mainly because of the price but also partly because of the lack of headphone jack. Samsung was smart enough to notice the blowback and include it for S9. Apple relies on mind control instead, which is apparently not too hard for the kind of fan they attract, so a bunch of them will gloss over that deficiency and put a pair of overpriced Beats phones on their credit card, most probably near its melting point. Life with Apple. Life with a pocketful of dongles.
Offtopic? More like, Apple employee with mod points, off their meds.
One Android phone with headphone jack, there, problem solved.
Android owners voted Google's Pixel off the island mainly because of the price but also partly because of the lack of headphone jack. Samsung was smart enough to notice the blowback and include it for S9. Apple relies on mind control instead, which is apparently not too hard for the kind of fan they attract, so a bunch of them will gloss over that deficiency and put a pair of overpriced Beats phones on their credit card, most probably near its melting point. Life with Apple. Life with a pocketful of dongles.
and don't need to be separately powered
Who would spend more for headphones than they do on their gadgets?
Many people. Your headphones will long outlast your gadgets and superior audio quality doesn't come cheap. BTW, it's way easier to tell the difference between great and crap audio with headphones than it is with speakers. Partly because room acoustics don't come into it.