vs
7.5Display3.3
4.9Smart features3.9
Dimensions
Size comparison
Watch Buds105 (2023)
| Watch Buds | 105 (2023) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 47 mm | 115.1 mm | −68.1 mm |
| Width | 47.5 mm | 49.4 mm | −1.9 mm |
| Thickness | 15 mm | 14.5 mm | +0.5 mm |
| Weight | 66 g | 79 g | −12 g |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is Watch Buds better than 105 (2023)?
- Built-in GPSYes · 105 (2023): No
- AMOLED / OLED displayYes · 105 (2023): No
- NFC paymentsYes · 105 (2023): No
- Resolution (width)466 px vs 120 px3.9×
- Pixel density326 ppi vs 111 ppi2.9×
- Weight66.5 g vs 78.7 g+18%
Why is 105 (2023) better than Watch Buds?
- Battery capacity410 mAh vs 1,000 mAh2.4×
- Screen size1.43″ vs 1.8″+26%
- SpeakerNo · Watch Buds: Yes
- Thickness15 mm vs 14.5 mm+3%
Specifications
Side by side
| Design & durability | ||
| Case size | 47 mm | — |
| Weight | 66.5 g | 78.7 g |
| Thickness | 15 mm | 14.5 mm |
| Height | 47 mm | 115.1 mm |
| Width | 47.5 mm | 49.4 mm |
| Case material | Stainless steel | — |
| Colours | Black, Khaki | Red Terracotta, Cyan, Charcoal |
| Display | ||
| Screen size | 1.43″ | 1.8″ |
| Display technology | AMOLED | LCD |
| Panel | AMOLED | TFT LCD |
| AMOLED / OLED display | Yes | No |
| Resolution (width) | 466 px | 120 px |
| Resolution (height) | 466 px | 160 px |
| Pixel density | 326 ppi | 111 ppi |
| Refresh rate | 60 Hz | 60 Hz |
| Battery | ||
| Battery capacity | 410 mAh | 1,000 mAh |
| Battery type | Li-Ion | Li-Ion |
| Wireless charging | Yes | — |
| Health sensors | ||
| Optical heart rate | Yes | — |
| Blood oxygen (SpO2) | Yes | — |
| Sensors | Accelerometer, gyro, heart rate, SpO2 | — |
| Sports & navigation | ||
| Built-in GPS | Yes | No |
| Satellite systems | GLONASS, GALILEO, BDS | — |
| Connectivity | ||
| NFC payments | Yes | No |
| LTE (cellular) | No | No |
| eSIM | No | No |
| Bluetooth | 5.2 | — |
| Smart features | ||
| Speaker | No | Yes |
| Platform | ||
| Operating system | HarmonyOS 3.0 | — |
| Platform | HarmonyOS | — |
