I appreciate your testing, specially with external sensors. I find the Ultra way too expensive compared to what it brings of extra features compared to the Watch 7 (or the TicWatch Pro); apart from the materials, it's a bigger battery, and the 10 ATM rating, plus the button for workouts. The ATM is a static rating and Samsung one their web site specifically says it's not for diving below 1.5 meters. That's disappointing, compared to Huawei GT4 Pro, Ultimate, Garmin or the Apple Watch Ultra. I had high hopes for the new bioactive sensor and they claim a 30% improvement over the Watch 6 in terms of accuracy in tracking dynamic HR changes, but perhaps it's not enough. It will do other things such as AGEs, and probably more in the future.
@@GadgetyMV Thanks for your additions! I agree with you that the HR sensor can still be improved. It's 7% for the Galaxy Watch Ultra, whereas it's 2% for the Apple Watch, which is much better...
Thank you for the review. I think it needs more clarification for GPS based fitness activity battery life. For example, you start riding, how long the battery lasts, five hours, six hours? What about battery life in trail runs or trekking for example, where you start the fitness app and go for many hours etc.
Good question. When I tested it took 10% per hour so expect between 8 and 10 hours I guess. There is a battery saving workout mode but I didn't test it till now.
Thanks for the great review. I am still using my trusty Pixel Watch 1 and I was pleasantly surprised to see it is still the top Wear OS device for HR accuracy (well, at least BEFORE this new Samsung). I am probably going to get the Watch 7 (which has almost all the same internals) and was hoping that Samsung finally got their act together, especially in terms of GPS accuracy. Looks like they finally have done that. Do you have any plans to test the 7, as well?
The Watch 7 has the same HR sensor so you will get the same results as the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Maybe even better for people with smaller wrists because the watch is smaller and may better fit their wrist! This is a good choice as well. :-)
I would not even bother looking at either of those watches. Having to play around with apps, phone and sensor connection issues are all not acceptable. Garmin, Suunto, Polar and similar devices are superior, you do not need a phone to connect sensors and they conform to the ant+ standard so it is extremely unusual to have sensor connection issues, they just work.
I agree with you that ANT+ is a much better protocol. What I find better with Wear OS smart watches is the integration with the phone when you answer calls, reply messages... And the different apps offer many options which adds some flexibility.
As a cyclist i can be outside doing a ride with breaks for several hours. Might be 5-8 hours. Will the Ultra last that long tracking the entire ride with GPS and also using the map navigation? Great review
How do you know the Strava measurement is necessarily all that much better. Sometimes with these devices I wonder if consistency isn't what really matters. If you use the same device, and it gives you the same results so that you can improve... :-) interesting
The definition of FTP is the maximum power that you can hold for an hour. I agree with this, and I am not sure I could hold 255W for an hour; I think Strava's estimation is probably too high. On the other hand, I know I have never done a 20-minute all-out test, but I was able to hold 240W for 20 minutes. I think at least 240W can be sustained for an hour, but maybe not 255W. Strava takes the whole power curve into account to estimate FTP, gathering data from all your rides. Conversely, Samsung only uses data from the current ride and focuses on the 4-minute power peak. Currently, I am working on FTP estimation based on power-to-HR correlation, but Samsung seems not to use HR data (there was no HR data during the ride). I need to do more tests to better understand how Samsung's FTP estimation works, but I believe it is only based on your 4-minute power peak.If you perform a 4-minute all-out test, you will get an idea of your VO2max power, not your FTP. Even though there are slight differences between individuals, VO2max is often correlated with FTP (if you get fitter, your FTP will increase along with your VO2max). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to estimate FTP based on VO2max. As you suggested, consistency is what is most important. Personally, I don't need to know the exact value of my FTP; I am more interested in how big companies handle this concept. Sorry for the lengthy response!
Are you able to modify the biking sport mode display to show a map and tracking? I currently have a fenix 7s where sport mode screens are practically fully customizable and this is very handy for enduro dirt biking in the bush. Tempted to switch but cannot find anything online about adjusting the sport mode displays... Any help appreciated!
You can load gpx with Samsung Health but for Enduro guiding, I would suggest to use Komoot. You have access to all Wear OS Playstore apps... So there are third party options...
Thanks. Its a very nice smartwatch and very responsive. Also the HR are much more stable than on the watch 4. The body battery measures are spot on for me at last.
What does it mean to have an accuracy of 7%? Is that a good thing? Since it's accuracy per device, shouldn't be "the higher, the better"? Why is it that the closest to 0 is better than closest to 100 (in terms of accuracy, isn't 100% accuracy the best?). I believe I'm misinterpreting the graph
7% means the real value is close to 7% to what the sensor gives you. If you have 0%, this means that the gives you always the exact value. Or 100% correlation gives you an exact value as well. My definition of accuracy in the video : standard deviation divided by the mean of the heart rate values. So lower is better.
@@bipr A-ha! So the 7% means how much it deviated from the "true value/base value" which is taken from the Polar H10 (same one that I use, by the way). Thanks the the insight! Great video, by the way! I was already on the fence about getting one, you just pushed me in the right direction! Keep up with the work!
@@ibby81ae Yes it may be possible that you get more juice after one week, but I don't really know today. I would have expected a bit more battery life given the capacity and the thinner processor... I will continue to test the watch and tell you in the comments in the comming days if it gets better!
All depends on your phone more than anything. You can't use Apple Watch with android & even if you could use this with Apple, nobody will pick this over an Apple Watch Ultra who owns an iPhone. For many years now, the Watch keeps me in Apple iPhone ownership. The actual operating system in Samsung & Google watches sucks.
I completely agree, you can see in the video 6:09 that the Watch SE 2 has an accuracy of 2% which is even better than the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Watch Ultra is the best among Wear OS devices.
Sorry? Can you tell me more? I didn't use AI for the thumbnail... I just took a picture of the watch with my Sony camera using my 2.8 FE 90mm macro lens at 5.6 and put text as overlay afterwards. On the back it is my white helmet which is blured because of the depth of field...
What do you think of the new Galaxy Watch Ultra?
I appreciate your testing, specially with external sensors. I find the Ultra way too expensive compared to what it brings of extra features compared to the Watch 7 (or the TicWatch Pro); apart from the materials, it's a bigger battery, and the 10 ATM rating, plus the button for workouts. The ATM is a static rating and Samsung one their web site specifically says it's not for diving below 1.5 meters. That's disappointing, compared to Huawei GT4 Pro, Ultimate, Garmin or the Apple Watch Ultra. I had high hopes for the new bioactive sensor and they claim a 30% improvement over the Watch 6 in terms of accuracy in tracking dynamic HR changes, but perhaps it's not enough. It will do other things such as AGEs, and probably more in the future.
@@GadgetyMV Thanks for your additions! I agree with you that the HR sensor can still be improved. It's 7% for the Galaxy Watch Ultra, whereas it's 2% for the Apple Watch, which is much better...
@@biprdoes the ultra connect to external heart rate monitors?
@@darsatdays749 No not natively but you can do it with the app HR2VP Watch Bike Computer which costs around 12$, one time fee.
@@bipr thanks for your response.. appreciate it..
Thank you for the review. I think it needs more clarification for GPS based fitness activity battery life. For example, you start riding, how long the battery lasts, five hours, six hours? What about battery life in trail runs or trekking for example, where you start the fitness app and go for many hours etc.
Good question. When I tested it took 10% per hour so expect between 8 and 10 hours I guess. There is a battery saving workout mode but I didn't test it till now.
@@bipr Thank you; so it can cover a triathlon on the paper :)
great video 😊😊 very helpful
Thank you!
Très bon test
Merci
Thanks for the great review. I am still using my trusty Pixel Watch 1 and I was pleasantly surprised to see it is still the top Wear OS device for HR accuracy (well, at least BEFORE this new Samsung). I am probably going to get the Watch 7 (which has almost all the same internals) and was hoping that Samsung finally got their act together, especially in terms of GPS accuracy. Looks like they finally have done that. Do you have any plans to test the 7, as well?
The Watch 7 has the same HR sensor so you will get the same results as the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Maybe even better for people with smaller wrists because the watch is smaller and may better fit their wrist! This is a good choice as well. :-)
curious while testing the Ultra did you have the HR sensor set to "Continuous" ?
Yes HR was set to continuous monitoring... 💓
Great Review
Curious when you did the testing on the ultra did you have the Heart Rate Sensor set to "Continuous" ?
Yes continuous monitoring was activated... A s well as always on display. Only stress monitoring was disabled.
@@bipr thanks forgot to ask does your app work on the latest huawei watches ?
@@kuau714 I don't think so... It works on Wear OS and can be downloaded only on the Playstore...
How is the battery life, have you activated all the health options like continuous heart and stress tracking, sleep, etc.?
Heart rate continuous monitoring was ON as well as sleep tracking. Continuous strees tracking was not activated.
@@bipr how long did your Galaxy Watch Ultra last on a single charge?
@@ibby81ae The watch lasted 2 days. I will see in the future if it can be more than that...
@bipr was always-on display on aswell?
@@ibby81ae yes with always on display.
I would not even bother looking at either of those watches. Having to play around with apps, phone and sensor connection issues are all not acceptable. Garmin, Suunto, Polar and similar devices are superior, you do not need a phone to connect sensors and they conform to the ant+ standard so it is extremely unusual to have sensor connection issues, they just work.
I agree with you that ANT+ is a much better protocol. What I find better with Wear OS smart watches is the integration with the phone when you answer calls, reply messages... And the different apps offer many options which adds some flexibility.
As a cyclist i can be outside doing a ride with breaks for several hours. Might be 5-8 hours. Will the Ultra last that long tracking the entire ride with GPS and also using the map navigation? Great review
@@FabOnABike 8 to 10 hours should be fine. There is also a battery saving workout mode which I didn't test till now... I'll see in the future
How do you know the Strava measurement is necessarily all that much better. Sometimes with these devices I wonder if consistency isn't what really matters. If you use the same device, and it gives you the same results so that you can improve... :-) interesting
The definition of FTP is the maximum power that you can hold for an hour. I agree with this, and I am not sure I could hold 255W for an hour; I think Strava's estimation is probably too high. On the other hand, I know I have never done a 20-minute all-out test, but I was able to hold 240W for 20 minutes. I think at least 240W can be sustained for an hour, but maybe not 255W. Strava takes the whole power curve into account to estimate FTP, gathering data from all your rides. Conversely, Samsung only uses data from the current ride and focuses on the 4-minute power peak. Currently, I am working on FTP estimation based on power-to-HR correlation, but Samsung seems not to use HR data (there was no HR data during the ride). I need to do more tests to better understand how Samsung's FTP estimation works, but I believe it is only based on your 4-minute power peak.If you perform a 4-minute all-out test, you will get an idea of your VO2max power, not your FTP. Even though there are slight differences between individuals, VO2max is often correlated with FTP (if you get fitter, your FTP will increase along with your VO2max). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to estimate FTP based on VO2max. As you suggested, consistency is what is most important. Personally, I don't need to know the exact value of my FTP; I am more interested in how big companies handle this concept. Sorry for the lengthy response!
@@bipr 👍
Are you able to modify the biking sport mode display to show a map and tracking? I currently have a fenix 7s where sport mode screens are practically fully customizable and this is very handy for enduro dirt biking in the bush. Tempted to switch but cannot find anything online about adjusting the sport mode displays... Any help appreciated!
You can load gpx with Samsung Health but for Enduro guiding, I would suggest to use Komoot. You have access to all Wear OS Playstore apps... So there are third party options...
Thanks. Its a very nice smartwatch and very responsive. Also the HR are much more stable than on the watch 4.
The body battery measures are spot on for me at last.
I agree with you, and I think/hope firmware updates will come in the future and improve a little bit measurements.
What does it mean to have an accuracy of 7%? Is that a good thing? Since it's accuracy per device, shouldn't be "the higher, the better"? Why is it that the closest to 0 is better than closest to 100 (in terms of accuracy, isn't 100% accuracy the best?). I believe I'm misinterpreting the graph
7% means the real value is close to 7% to what the sensor gives you. If you have 0%, this means that the gives you always the exact value. Or 100% correlation gives you an exact value as well. My definition of accuracy in the video : standard deviation divided by the mean of the heart rate values. So lower is better.
@@bipr A-ha! So the 7% means how much it deviated from the "true value/base value" which is taken from the Polar H10 (same one that I use, by the way).
Thanks the the insight! Great video, by the way! I was already on the fence about getting one, you just pushed me in the right direction! Keep up with the work!
Its 7% inaccuracy or margin of error present in the calculation.
👍🏾
Could you please let me know how long you have owned the Ultra Watch?
I got the watch on monday morning, so 4 days ago! I tried to do my best to gather maximum information during this time.
Could you please do a follow-up review? I have heard that the battery life improves after a week of usage.
@@ibby81ae Yes it may be possible that you get more juice after one week, but I don't really know today. I would have expected a bit more battery life given the capacity and the thinner processor... I will continue to test the watch and tell you in the comments in the comming days if it gets better!
@bipr I hope it lasts at least three days with all the features enabled.
@@ibby81ae As of now, 2 days maximum, but I will keep you updated!
All depends on your phone more than anything. You can't use Apple Watch with android & even if you could use this with Apple, nobody will pick this over an Apple Watch Ultra who owns an iPhone.
For many years now, the Watch keeps me in Apple iPhone ownership. The actual operating system in Samsung & Google watches sucks.
Apple watches are great products as well, the HR sensor is for example more accurate.
Apple watch is the most accurate from several articles I read. What do you think?
I completely agree, you can see in the video 6:09 that the Watch SE 2 has an accuracy of 2% which is even better than the Galaxy Watch Ultra. Watch Ultra is the best among Wear OS devices.
That ai generated thumbnail was all sorts of wrong.
Sorry? Can you tell me more? I didn't use AI for the thumbnail... I just took a picture of the watch with my Sony camera using my 2.8 FE 90mm macro lens at 5.6 and put text as overlay afterwards. On the back it is my white helmet which is blured because of the depth of field...