Future Google Pixel Watch models could have a nifty internal spec boost.
That's according to a respected insider – though I wouldn't hold your breath for it.
When it comes to the best smartwatches on the market, your decision is ultimately limited by the other technology you own. Sure, there are a few models which can be used with a range of different phones, but most others are tied to their respective handsets.
You'll need to be an iPhone user, for example, to take advantage of the Apple Watch range. Fortunately, if you use an Android phone, there are a much wider array of options for you.
Chief among them is the Google Pixel Watch range. Newer than competitors like the Samsung Galaxy Watch, Google's offering has gone from strength to strength over three iterations.
Now, reports about an as yet unreleased model suggest that shows no signs of slowing down. That's according to notable Google insider, Kamila Wojciechowska, who suggests that a custom Tensor chip could power a future iteration of the series.
The news comes from Google's in-house chip division, with a document viewed by Wojciechowska. That outlined part of the roadmap for the smartwatch division, which is where the insight arose from.
The report suggests that very little in the way of specific information is given, but that they could still gleam a fair amount from what was on offer. That includes a rather major stumbling block – the chip isn't anticipated to launch until 2026. You didn't go getting your hopes up, there, did you?
Elsewhere, the document defines the core makeup of the chip. That includes a single Arm Cortex-A78 and a pair of Arm Cortex-A55's. That might be double Dutch to some, but it's also anticipated to be built on a 3nm process node. That should mean high efficiency and fast performance.
Of course, with the chip only lining up to make its mark on the Google Pixel Watch 5, this should really be taken with a pinch of salt. Two years is a long time in technology, and a whole lot could change before then making these rumours seem entirely incorrect.
