Nearly two weeks after the product’s official release, Chipworks has updated its earlier Apple Watch teardown to note several significant details, most notably that Apple’s latest processor uses a 28-nanometer building process that has already been leapfrogged by newer technology. The discovery reveals that the S1 — believed to be roughly equivalent in processing power to Apple’s A5 processors — can be readily evolved using the smaller 20-nanometer process used in Apple’s current A8 processors, as well as the cutting-edge 14-nanometer process that’s reportedly being used in the upcoming A9. This is good news for next-generation versions of the Apple Watch, as they will be able to easily fit faster or more power-efficient processors in the same space as the S1.
As highlighted in separate chip teardown and X-ray analyses released today by Chipworks and iFixit (partnered with Creative Electron), the S1 packs over 30 components into a resin-covered package, including everything from wireless chips, wireless charging, audio processors and sensors to the CPU itself. The CPU is again said to be Samsung-fabricated, continuing the unusual frenemy relationship between Apple and one of its chief consumer electronics rivals. Several of the beautiful iFixit/Creative Electron X-ray images of the Apple Watch are included below…
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The watch CPU is considered to be about equivalent to that from the iPhone 5, which was the A6 CPU. That A6 was made at 32nm. This is supposedly 28nm, so yea, there’s a ton of room for improvement.
Give the Watch2 25% more battery, and 50% better performance and you’ll get a ton more people picking it up next spring.
/edit By “Battery” I mean additional battery life from CPU efficiency improvements.
By “more battery” you mean same battery life in a 25% slimmer design. Because, this is Apple we’re talking about.
next spring? lol people still think the Apple Watch is going to get yearly hardware updates.
First time I’ve seen real evidence of Apple reserving advancements for future iterations, that couldn’t be explained away by the need for more R&D, or a philosophical decision to prime the market with a simpler product before introducing complexity.
Complexity and refinement are great reasons for holding off on features but it seems to me that last September Tim Cook was telling us it was “worth the wait” to “early 2015” (LOL) primarily over aggressive software refinements to power consumption.
In that time, a decision to use 20nm wouldn’t have killed them.
Are you a chip expert? How did you arrive at 20 nm? Starting at 28 and shaving off a few nanometers?
What an idiotic reply.
1) I hold a Bachelor of Science (Physics) and a Bachelor of Engineering (Computer & Network Engineering) from RMIT University. What are your lofty qualifications for being an asshat on the internet?
2) I didn’t arrive at anything. 20nm was arrived at for me, by some brilliant engineers.
I won’t waste further replies on you, read below if you’re interested.
LOL!?
Do you live a vacuum?
There’s a reason it’s not 20nm, the same it’s not 14nm: it’s much cheaper to make it a 28nm, and the 20nm facilities are already fully loaded with iPhone and iPad chips (among others)…
It’s not a flick of a switch, or cheap, or immediate.
Where did I say it was easy or cheap? Nothing about the Apple watch has been easy or cheap, or quick for that matter. There have been many months of software refinement dealing SPECIFICALLY with power consumption issues. Approaching it from a hardware perspective is not out of the question, especially given the size of the production run compared with the phones and ipads.
Do you have anything of substance to offer, or are you just going to yap like a territorial puppy?
All I said was “it wouldn’t have killed them” … and behold the parade of yapping lapdogs. OF COURSE they made a cost/benefit decision, but my point was simply that it’s the first time I’ve seen one that couldn’t be backed up by a more lofty goal, than simply production practicality.
Apple are well known for pushing themselves beyond considerations which other companies would consider practical. Remarking that this is the first time I’ve seen such a thing, shouldn’t trigger you stupid little yappy lapdog response.
28nm has more to do with the timing on when they settled on the release design. It probably speaks more to the impression that the Apple delayed the Watch release by about a year or so to iron out issues. But with the product out the door, the next S processor should be a major boost energy and performance wise. Considering the current processor is being compared to the A5, the S series seems to have a nice future ahead of it. To me, it’ll be interesting to see where else it shows up…
The A8 in iPhone 6 is a 20nm process, meaning that 28nm was the prudent choice last September so as not to place undue stress on other production cycles… I get that… but the only minor point I was making, which everyone seems to be at my throat about, is that it’s been a long time since then, and we’re not even into a full production run yet.
Either a) there was time to revise the design (especially in light of months-long aggressive power usage optimisation, or b) everyone who maintains this isn’t a botched release is wrong about that.
One or the other.
28nm isn’t that much older. It’s the same in the A7 chip in the iPhone 5s and iPad Air 1. It’s also the process Qualcomm was using until a few months ago (the Snapdragon 801 to 805 was using 28nm). Even the recent mobile chipfrom Nvidia, the K1 ( both in 32 and 64 bit Variation) was built on the 28nm lithograph.
For comparison sake- the Motorola 360 uses a Texas Instruments OMAP 3630 that’s built on a even older 45nm process- that’s the same process used in the iPhone 4S version of the A5 (there’s also a 32nm variation although that runs on a single core for the Apple TV).
I hate to say so what, but, so what. They could have found muppet babies and unicorn souls in the darned thing. If it works and works well, awesome. If not, oh well. Is this supposed to make us upset or not want to use one? Not sure of the benefit of articles like this.
very good!
Unless you’re a chip designer, please everyone spare us the conspiracy theories. You can’t really compare the S series to the A series or Intel Mac chips. I’m NOT an expert but I know that there are a lot of factors involved, including manufacturing capability, cost, physical hardiness, heat, capability for future dust and water proofing, etc.
Battery life, like the first gen iPad, is fine. IMO priorities for future hardware are to be 1) 2x faster, 2) more waterproof and 3) a millimeter or two thinner. Of course knocking $50 off the Sport and $100 of the stainless steel couldn’t hurt either.
I think if you want immediate price reductions you’d be better off buying some Android smartwatch. I highly doubt Apple is going to alter its product pricing structure for you or anyone else. Eventually I can see myself picking up some refurbed AppleWatch for less money but I’m sure I’m going to have to wait another year for that to happen. No AppleWatch fire sales just yet as long as Apple can’t meet demand with it.
I already bought my Watch and am enjoying it :)
Apple dropped the price of the first iPhone months into its release and I believe it quickly went from US$599 to $399 to $199 (with contract). I wouldn’t be surprised if future generations include price drops.
1 – for what?
2 – that would be cool for diving/swimming
3 – there’s no need to sacrifice battery for that
4 – apple can’t make them fast enough, so why should they drop the prices?
The problem with making appeals to authority is that there’s no requirement to post your resume on internet comments, and so you have no clue whatsoever whether people are engineers or not.
Only thing I agree with you about is that you aren’t an expert.