Dimensions
Size comparison
C9Watch T1
| C9 | Watch T1 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 43 mm | 43.5 mm | −0.5 mm |
| Width | 43 mm | 43.5 mm | −0.5 mm |
| Thickness | 10 mm | 10.2 mm | −0.2 mm |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is C9 better than Watch T1?
C9 has no measurable advantages in this pair.
Why is Watch T1 better than C9?
- Built-in GPSNo · C9: Yes
- AMOLED / OLED displayNo · C9: Yes
- NFC paymentsNo · C9: Yes
- Resolution (width)240 px vs 416 px+73%
- Pixel density265 ppi vs 453 ppi+71%
- Battery capacity210 mAh vs 228 mAh+9%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design & durability | ||
| Case size | 43 mm | 44 mm |
| Thickness | 10 mm | 10.2 mm |
| Height | 43 mm | 43.5 mm |
| Width | 43 mm | 43.5 mm |
| Lens / cover glass | Scratch-resistant glass | — |
| Water resistance | — | 5 ATM |
| Ingress protection | IP68 | — |
| Water resistance (IPx) | IPx8 | — |
| Colours | Black, Blue, Pink | Black |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 1.28″ | 1.3″ |
| Display technology | LCD | AMOLED |
| Panel | IPS LCD | AMOLED |
| AMOLED / OLED display | No | Yes |
| Resolution (width) | 240 px | 416 px |
| Resolution (height) | 240 px | 416 px |
| Pixel density | 265 ppi | 453 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | 60 Hz |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 210 mAh | 228 mAh |
| Battery type | — | Li-Ion |
| Health sensors | ||
| Optical heart rate | Yes | Yes |
| Sensors | Accelerometer, gyro, heart rate | Accelerometer, heart rate |
| Sports & navigation | ||
| Built-in GPS | No | Yes |
| Satellite systems | — | GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS |
| Connectivity | ||
| NFC payments | No | Yes |
| LTE (cellular) | No | No |
| eSIM | No | No |
| Bluetooth | 5 | 5 |
| Smart features | ||
| Speaker | No | No |
| Platform | ||
| Operating system | Proprietary OS | Proprietary OS |
| Platform | Proprietary | Proprietary |
