Samsung is set to launch its Galaxy S10 and Galaxy S10+ on February 20. The leaks show that Samsung will launch at least four models – the Galaxy S10e, the Galaxy S10, the Galaxy S10+ and a 5G model. Alongside the Galaxy S10 models, Samsung is also expected to launch a new wearable, called the Galaxy Watch Active. The smartwatch could serve as the successor to Samsung’s Gear Sport lineup and while it was initially rumored to be called as Galaxy Sport, a new leak reveals that it will be called the Galaxy Watch Active instead.
Ahead of its launch, Samsung Galaxy Watch Active’s specifications have leaked, courtesy its firmware files. According to XDA, the Galaxy Watch Active is codenamed “pulse” and carries model name SM-R500. The details were hidden inside Tizen 22.214.171.124 firmware files design for the smartwatch codenamed pulse and it is not clear why the device has model name SM-R500 when the Gear Sport had model name SM-R600. The smartwatch with model name SM-R500 and codename “pulse” has been in rumors for few months now and it seems to be the device that has leaked just now.
The firmware files indicate that it will feature a slightly larger display, larger by only 0.1 inches and will get an upgrade in terms of processor. It will be powered by Samsung’s Exynos 9110 SoC versus Exynos 7270 found on the Gear Sport. The smartwatch will feature a speaker and there will be an LTE model too. An XDA Recognized Developer deadman96385 says the firmware files include evidence for a dual eSIM model there is no confirmation yet.
Watch: Samsung Galaxy M10, M20 First Look
Since the renders show that it is a smaller or slimmer device, the firmware files suggest a smaller battery too. It will reportedly pack a 230mAh battery compared to 300mAh battery found on the Gear Sport. This could be the battery capacity of smaller 42mm Galaxy Watch but the 46mm Galaxy Watch might pack a larger battery. The Galaxy Watch Active is not expected to support MST but it will have NFC support for Samsung Pay. It will have heart rate monitor but there is no evidence to suggest blood pressure monitor.