5 ms·

The CPU benchmarks don't make it a good CPU. It's old and power hungry, that's primarily why it sucks.

by Steko 12y ago

ekianjo 12y ago
The OMAP3 is not THAT power hungry, and power consumption depends a lot on frequency anyway.
- Steko 12y ago
  Not power hungry for a phone but for a watch it's a dog. Recharge a watch twice a day, how is that "not THAT power hungry"? A watch needs an order of magnitude less CPU power than a phone, perhaps several. In 2014 if you see a watch product with a smartphone CPU, you know they blew it.
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    You mean it /should/ use an order of magnitude less CPU power, but ATM that's not the case - smartwatches seem more like a previous generation of smartphones sized downwards, with a patched OS.
  - Kurtz79 12y ago
    I don´t know if it makes much sense comparing a smartwatch with a traditional watch. They share only the form factor. I would go as far as saying they do not even share the functionality of keeping track of time: nowadays traditional watches are basically used only as fashion accessories (as the article points out), since for most people that function has been carried out by mobile phones since the first Nokias. A Smartwatch is more like a lightweight (in every sense) smartphone, with the significant drawback of having much less space available for a battery, but I agree completely that having to charge it twice a day is a deal breaker, and not acceptable from a user standpoint, regardless of the feat of engineering the watch actually is.
    - Steko 12y ago
      Most of the current crop of smartwatches trying to be lightweight smartphones are all turkeys and have fizzled. Kind of like the early tablets that tried to be computers when the actual product demands a 8-10 hour (work/school day) battery life. Battery life is even more critical with a watch which needs to last at least 16 hours, hopefully quite a bit longer, and you probably want it to keep telling time even if the main battery goes out unless that battery lasts the better part of a week. So the correct way to design a smartwatch is to, as Apple did with the ipad, figure out the device size and computing capabilities backwards from the battery life and then go to market when you're happy with what's possible. The Pebble, to it's credit, has a Cortex-M microcontroller instead of a smartphone SoC and get's up to a week of battery life.
    - Steko 12y ago
      Most of the current crop of smartwatches trying to be lightweight smartphones are all turkeys and have fizzled. Kind of like the early tablets that tried to be computers when the actual product demands a 8-10 hour (work/school day) battery life. Battery life is even more critical with a watch which needs to last at least 16 hours, hopefully quite a bit longer, and you probably want it to keep telling time even if the main battery goes out unless that battery lasts the better part of a week. So the correct way to design a smartwatch is to, as Apple did with the ipad, figure out the device size and computing capabilities backwards from the battery life and then go to market when you're happy with what's possible. The Pebble, to it's credit, has a Cortex-M microcontroller instead of a smartphone SoC and get's up to a week of battery life.
kenrikm 12y ago
The age is not an issue, people thought the iPhone 4 was wicked fast at the time, the speed seems adequate for a smart watch I would contend the software is too bloated - Java is not the fastest tool in the shed. However the fact that it's power hungry is a deal breaker in a watch.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Cortex A8 was considered power hungry even for its time, among other 40nm chips. Cortex A9 was both a more efficient and more powerful chip. Now, what most OEMs use in low-end phones, and even smartwatches is Cortex A7 which is roughly as powerful as Cortex A8, but far more efficient, both because of its design but also because it comes at 28nm. I think this comparison was made by ARM itself: http://archive.linuxgizmos.com/ldimages/stories/arm_cortexa7_comparison.jpg http://archive.linuxgizmos.com/ldimages/stories/arm_cortexa7... It's really strange that Motorola would go for the 3 year old Cortex A8 core, when Cortex A7 has been available for more than a year, and several chip makers produce them in different varieties.
  - threeseed 12y ago
    Cost and Availability are two big reasons to use an older technology.

The CPU benchmarks don't make it a good CPU. It's old and power hungry, that's primarily why it sucks.

by Steko 12y ago

The CPU benchmarks don't make it a good CPU. It's old and power hungry, that's primarily why it sucks.

ekianjo 12y ago

The OMAP3 is not THAT power hungry, and power consumption depends a lot on frequency anyway.

Steko 12y ago
Not power hungry for a phone but for a watch it's a dog. Recharge a watch twice a day, how is that "not THAT power hungry"? A watch needs an order of magnitude less CPU power than a phone, perhaps several. In 2014 if you see a watch product with a smartphone CPU, you know they blew it.
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  You mean it /should/ use an order of magnitude less CPU power, but ATM that's not the case - smartwatches seem more like a previous generation of smartphones sized downwards, with a patched OS.
- Kurtz79 12y ago
  I don´t know if it makes much sense comparing a smartwatch with a traditional watch. They share only the form factor. I would go as far as saying they do not even share the functionality of keeping track of time: nowadays traditional watches are basically used only as fashion accessories (as the article points out), since for most people that function has been carried out by mobile phones since the first Nokias. A Smartwatch is more like a lightweight (in every sense) smartphone, with the significant drawback of having much less space available for a battery, but I agree completely that having to charge it twice a day is a deal breaker, and not acceptable from a user standpoint, regardless of the feat of engineering the watch actually is.
  - Steko 12y ago
    Most of the current crop of smartwatches trying to be lightweight smartphones are all turkeys and have fizzled. Kind of like the early tablets that tried to be computers when the actual product demands a 8-10 hour (work/school day) battery life. Battery life is even more critical with a watch which needs to last at least 16 hours, hopefully quite a bit longer, and you probably want it to keep telling time even if the main battery goes out unless that battery lasts the better part of a week. So the correct way to design a smartwatch is to, as Apple did with the ipad, figure out the device size and computing capabilities backwards from the battery life and then go to market when you're happy with what's possible. The Pebble, to it's credit, has a Cortex-M microcontroller instead of a smartphone SoC and get's up to a week of battery life.
  - Steko 12y ago
    Most of the current crop of smartwatches trying to be lightweight smartphones are all turkeys and have fizzled. Kind of like the early tablets that tried to be computers when the actual product demands a 8-10 hour (work/school day) battery life. Battery life is even more critical with a watch which needs to last at least 16 hours, hopefully quite a bit longer, and you probably want it to keep telling time even if the main battery goes out unless that battery lasts the better part of a week. So the correct way to design a smartwatch is to, as Apple did with the ipad, figure out the device size and computing capabilities backwards from the battery life and then go to market when you're happy with what's possible. The Pebble, to it's credit, has a Cortex-M microcontroller instead of a smartphone SoC and get's up to a week of battery life.

kenrikm 12y ago

The age is not an issue, people thought the iPhone 4 was wicked fast at the time, the speed seems adequate for a smart watch I would contend the software is too bloated - Java is not the fastest tool in the shed. However the fact that it's power hungry is a deal breaker in a watch.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Cortex A8 was considered power hungry even for its time, among other 40nm chips. Cortex A9 was both a more efficient and more powerful chip. Now, what most OEMs use in low-end phones, and even smartwatches is Cortex A7 which is roughly as powerful as Cortex A8, but far more efficient, both because of its design but also because it comes at 28nm. I think this comparison was made by ARM itself: http://archive.linuxgizmos.com/ldimages/stories/arm_cortexa7_comparison.jpg http://archive.linuxgizmos.com/ldimages/stories/arm_cortexa7... It's really strange that Motorola would go for the 3 year old Cortex A8 core, when Cortex A7 has been available for more than a year, and several chip makers produce them in different varieties.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Cost and Availability are two big reasons to use an older technology.