Qualcomm is developing Snapdragon Wear 429 with 64-bit support
- U
- User
- vF3
- 16 Jul 2019
Qualcomm is developing Snapdragon Wear 429 with 64-bit support. keep going on. you are the best in the world market. best wishes.
- ?
- Anonymous
- 81X
- 11 Jul 2019
Love the Community, 10 Jul 2019Why can't Qualcomm make a Flagship Snapdragon Wear consisti... moreThis is sarcasm, right?
- Dolanescu
- qF@
- 11 Jul 2019
Qualcomm is absolute garbage in this market segment!
Also, the Wear OS is so behind compared with the competition...
- Z
- ZolaIII
- pp}
- 11 Jul 2019
dude111, 11 Jul 2019How can the M4 be a better choice than the A7 when its quit... moreBecause it's a only half the size of an A7 when fully equped with DSP while achieved more performance per W. Base line for a M4 is 1.25 DMIPS/MHz in its full enclosure (DSP, larger SRAM...) that rises to 1.95 DMIPS. A7 stays at 1.7 DMIPS. For instance M33 is only a minor performance upgrade to M4 (1.29 vs 1.25 DMIPS) in it's base configuration but brings in the Trust zone co processor & only on the core's that need it. The M35P baseline is 1.5 DMIPS same as A5 but M35P is still considerably smaller, when fully equipped estimates are 2.3 DMIPS same as A53 but with a size of A5 & that's more than 2x performance per W. The Huawei GT even it's SoC is based on very lithography (55nm) has a considerably better battery life & than really shows how much M4 is better choice.
- d
- dude111
- 8{c
- 11 Jul 2019
ZolaIII, 10 Jul 2019This will be by far the worst ever smartwatch SoC ever made... moreHow can the M4 be a better choice than the A7 when its quite a slowdog on the Huawei "Watch"?
I know its severely limited on RAM, but it doesnt have a full mobile OS as we know (its basically a fitness tracker) either.
Serious question.
- d
- dude111
- 8{c
- 11 Jul 2019
Love the Community, 10 Jul 2019Why can't Qualcomm make a Flagship Snapdragon Wear consisti... moreAre you for real?
- z
- zamroni1
- y$H
- 10 Jul 2019
who the h*** is managing qualcomm wearable division??? A53 and 12nm is definitely not flagship technology anymore
- F
- FullmetalJun
- XDa
- 10 Jul 2019
Samsung should make a Wear OS smartwatch with the Galaxy watch cpu which is better than this wear 429.
Qualcomm is not interested in making good smartwatch cpu
- H
- Harsahd
- fec
- 10 Jul 2019
Why 12nm, why not 7nm. After all smartwatch is far smaller than smartphone.
- Z
- ZolaIII
- pp}
- 10 Jul 2019
Love the Community, 10 Jul 2019Why can't Qualcomm make a Flagship Snapdragon Wear consisti... moreBecause you would had to ware battery in a handbag & would end up with burnings on your wrist first time when you push it.
- Kangal
- RN8
- 10 Jul 2019
This is another lazy attempt, just like the previous Snapdragon Wear SoC's.
We gave Qualcomm a pass initially with the unoptimised quad-Cortex A7 back in the 2016 watches.
Since then both Apple and Samsung, have been using better architecture, better lithography, and better system optimisations for their respective Watches. The only issue I have is that I'm not happy with the styling/hardware from Apple, nor do I have faith in the software/longevity from Samsung. So Google's AndroidWear and Snapdragon SoC has been something I've been looking out for.
I don't see anything tempting over the original Huawei Watch, and that's a shame.
- O
- One
- JLZ
- 10 Jul 2019
Hopefully with new watch we could connect with two phones. Gear S3 is still great, but connects only with one device.
- L
- Love the Community
- Fv4
- 10 Jul 2019
Why can't Qualcomm make a Flagship Snapdragon Wear consisting of a single Cortex A76 and a GPU as powerful but more efficient than Snapdragon 805 (10nm). The display on flagship wearables should be Stereoscopic 3D like the Nintendo 3DS to give off that 3D futuristic feel.
- O
- O S
- mix
- 10 Jul 2019
Snapdragon Wear 2700 will be based on the new Qualcomm 215,
while Snapdragon Wear 429W will be based on Snapdragon 429.
- Z
- ZolaIII
- pp}
- 10 Jul 2019
Vasra, 10 Jul 2019"12 nm FiNFET " This is beyond stupid. The wearable form... more20x design cost, 6~7x production cost for the 7nm FinFET compared to 22nm FD-SOI (with or without back biosing) and you end up with half 66~73% power consumption operating & 120~133% idle power consumption. Also you can't make a single chip or die integration on a FinFET as analog RF & mixed isn't suitable for it so you end up with future increase in price (more chip's) & future disadvantage in power consumption. It's plane stupid to use even cheapest simplified (number of layers) FinFET node aka 12 - 11nm which has the similar power peak active consumption while still costing more and being far inferior in everything else mentioned.
- Z
- ZolaIII
- pp}
- 10 Jul 2019
This will be by far the worst ever smartwatch SoC ever made (worse than worst MTK designs)! While FinFET is better regarding peak operational voltage needed its far worser regarding idle voltage compared to the planar, besides the all RF and mixed components simply don't work with FinFET. Answer is FD-SOI. The now very old A7 is still ARM's best V7 in order 32 bit application processor regarding DMIPS/W. The A53 is V8 64 bit and as such far less efficient. The step forward would be usage of last ARM Cortex M core's that belong to the V8M (still 32 bit) family & even so by mixing the more power efficient M22's with M33's or M35P's. The M4 (three stages +branch predictor in order) beats A7 (eith stages in order) best effort even when manufactured on really old 55 nm planar process (Huawei GT). QC is a joke when it comes to wearables and IoT. They did try to buy what they didn't have (NPX) but that whosent allowed & it's history now. NPX has already developed products on all (except new M35P) described.
- A
- Abhi
- YQZ
- 10 Jul 2019
I have doubts whether that'll be enough. Snapdragon 429 phones are not exactly smooth-running types.
Plus, by the time it'll arrive, Samsung and Apple might have switched to even better chips, manufactured on even more advanced nodes.
What baffles me is, even after all this time, Qualcomm is resolute in using 2-3 years old core. The A53. Why oh why could they not use Cortex A55? That one would, atleast on paper, provide the smoothness wear os currently needs desperately.
But at least it's a move. A positive one and a long time coming in. Maybe it's a stopgap measure. OR, at the risk of sounding too hopeful, Qualcomm might have learned the lesson and plans to release a new wearable chipset every year. Maybe we'll even see a pixel watch next year.
- A
- Adul Al Salami Kebab
- nrX
- 10 Jul 2019
Vasra, 10 Jul 2019"12 nm FiNFET " This is beyond stupid. The wearable form... morePoor yields = higher cost...
- Vasra
- pWD
- 10 Jul 2019
"12 nm FiNFET "
This is beyond stupid. The wearable form factor would most benefit from low-power enabling manufacturing nodes due to lack of big batteries.
Snapdragon is already produced on 7nm and 11nm nodes, why not mobile-wearable SoCs?
- kurotsuki
- uCh
- 10 Jul 2019
It’s about time. WearOS was way lagged behind WatchOS in regard of hardware support. So much potential were wasted because of that.