Anyone buying Garmin Fenix 6

[TTTedP]

ive only used WorkOutDoors app and the gps track looked fine to me on the 3 times I’ve used it. My wife runs with the standard app and I’ve not seen any huge issues with it?

I had heard someone else mention that with WOD app, the GPS tracks are great. But why doesn't it show this way in the Apple Workout app? Does that mean the actual GPS is working quite well, it's just the way Apple chooses to render their plots?

On a ride yesterday, the GPS performance between the AW5 and 935 seemed to be really close. Total ride showed 11.96 (AW5) vs 11.93 (FR935). For the hell of it I also ran two GPS bike units; 11.58 (Garmin 530) and 11.56 (Wahoo Bolt).

Total ascent also was interesting; 1156 ft (AW5), 1165 ft (FR935), 942 ft (G530), 1000 ft (Bolt).

All indicators are the AW5 did well, but when you look at the GPS plots in workout app, they are horrendous. Major swooping, disjointed starts and stops, etc - just for the sake of a nice flowy looking line.

 

[PatrickNSF]

The 945 and the Fenix 6 use a new Sony low power GPS chip, so I’m not sure that accuracy is on par with your 935. My Fenix 5+ was decent and much better than the AW. The Fenix 6 seems fine...a bit jittery but less “swoopy” than the AW.

In my experience every AW I‘ve had has measured a bit long compared to every Garmin I’ve had. I use a Stryd now so for me the point is moot. I wouldn’t rely on an AW for running or racing without a Stryd.

 

[kitenski]

I had heard someone else mention that with WOD app, the GPS tracks are great. But why doesn't it show this way in the Apple Workout app? Does that mean the actual GPS is working quite well, it's just the way Apple chooses to render their plots?

On a ride yesterday, the GPS performance between the AW5 and 935 seemed to be really close. Total ride showed 11.96 (AW5) vs 11.93 (FR935). For the hell of it I also ran two GPS bike units; 11.58 (Garmin 530) and 11.56 (Wahoo Bolt).

Total ascent also was interesting; 1156 ft (AW5), 1165 ft (FR935), 942 ft (G530), 1000 ft (Bolt).

All indicators are the AW5 did well, but when you look at the GPS plots in workout app, they are horrendous. Major swooping, disjointed starts and stops, etc - just for the sake of a nice flowy looking line.

Yes I think the aw app is doing some post processing of the actual gps track which seems very strange!

 

[Monkswhiskers]

I had heard someone else mention that with WOD app, the GPS tracks are great. But why doesn't it show this way in the Apple Workout app? Does that mean the actual GPS is working quite well, it's just the way Apple chooses to render their plots?

On a ride yesterday, the GPS performance between the AW5 and 935 seemed to be really close. Total ride showed 11.96 (AW5) vs 11.93 (FR935). For the hell of it I also ran two GPS bike units; 11.58 (Garmin 530) and 11.56 (Wahoo Bolt).

Total ascent also was interesting; 1156 ft (AW5), 1165 ft (FR935), 942 ft (G530), 1000 ft (Bolt).

All indicators are the AW5 did well, but when you look at the GPS plots in workout app, they are horrendous. Major swooping, disjointed starts and stops, etc - just for the sake of a nice flowy looking line.

I run a regular 10K route and am surprised at the consistancy of my AW (3 then 4) always less than 1% variance on distance, especially considering how gps can have bad days (atmospheric conditions etc.) I think the data records quite well but the apple track can look wayward, I think it is best to ignore it tbh. WOD records what you would typically see on other units. There is a reason the 935 has been the top tri watch for years, I think it is the most accurate. It was DCRs favourite until the 945 came out.
Ultimately, if you want better accurancy on distance then Stryd is the answer.

 

[James.K.Polk]

I'm having issues where the location is correct, and the tracking is relatively good (good enough, anyway) but the "start marker" is never in the right place. Does the green start arrow show up when the Watch actually finds GPS? If so, why would it take so long (given I thought it used the iPhone's GPS to start). In the below photos, the distance is okay, but the green and red should be in the same place...

I have a Stryd as well, but need to work on calibration and maximizing functionality before I switch over completely.

 

[TTTedP]

here's a couple of quick plot shots. I am starting to think its the way Apple renders the track vs an issue with the actual GPS performance of the watch. Still, I find that annoying since I like to geek out on maps.

 

[PBz]

I went back and forth between the AW4 and Fenix 5 for quite a while. One major issue for me was I run/bike more indoors and Garmin gave me none of the ‘metrics’ I wanted unless I did those outdoors.

Battery life - Garmin wins.
Stability - Apple wins (widgets resetting, GPS glitches..)
HRM - Apple wins (AW4+ HRM is as good as it gets on your wrist IMO)
Smart features - Apple wins
Screen visibility outdoors - Garmin blows Apple away

I would love more than 48 hours of battery life but with the metrics not applying to me and the often glitchy software I went AW over Garmin... and I really love Garmin products. I do wish the AW would sync with Peloton like the Fenix did. I found an old OT HRM that works instead of buying one.

 

[James.K.Polk]

I went back and forth between the AW4 and Fenix 5 for quite a while. One major issue for me was I run/bike more indoors and Garmin gave me none of the ‘metrics’ I wanted unless I did those outdoors.

Battery life - Garmin wins.
Stability - Apple wins (widgets resetting, GPS glitches..)
HRM - Apple wins (AW4+ HRM is as good as it gets on your wrist IMO)
Smart features - Apple wins
Screen visibility outdoors - Garmin blows Apple away

I would love more than 48 hours of battery life but with the metrics not applying to me and the often glitchy software I went AW over Garmin... and I really love Garmin products. I do with the AW would sync with Peloton like the Fenix did. I found an old OT HRM that works instead of buying one.

I wish Apple Watch had a treadmill calibration feature (i.e. just allowing you to reset its output to match what you get off a treadmill) but even some Garmin models don't have that. Besides that, I agree with your assessment. Plus, Apple Watch is a generally more useful watch than Garmin (though obviously the newer models have smartwatch features).

 

[TTTedP]

I think the data records quite well but the apple track can look wayward, I think it is best to ignore it tbh. WOD records what you would typically see on other units. There is a reason the 935 has been the top tri watch for years, I think it is the most accurate.

I think this is the best answer, thanks. The actual metrics between AW5 and 935 were very close. I am surprised more people don't complain about the way the native app renders tracks.

The 945 and the Fenix 6 use a new Sony low power GPS chip, so I’m not sure that accuracy is on par with your 935.

I am seeing this mentioned as well. Even the Garmin 530 has the Sony chip and the GPS performance on it was the worse of the 4 devices I tested. I was about to upgrade to a 945 and made a pit stop with the AW5 but after seeing all these plots, I am likely sticking with the 935 longer until Garmin optimizes the SW on their newer devices. AW5 battery isn't robust enough for me to use it exclusively.

 

[PatrickNSF]

I am I am seeing this mentioned as well. Even the Garmin 530 has the Sony chip and the GPS performance on it was the worse of the 4 devices I tested. I was about to upgrade to a 945 and made a temporary pit stop with the AW5 but after seeing all these plots, I am likely sticking with the 935 longer until Garmin optimizes the SW on their newer devices. AW5 battery isn't robust enough for me to use it exclusively.

I think that makes sense.

But the one area where the newer watches (245, 945, Fenix 6) are doing well for me are the Firstbeat recovery metrics. I used to just look at them for amusement but I worked with a running coach this summer for my PR/BQ race and I was surprised how much recovery time he was giving me in between hard workouts. It often lined up with the 245 I was using at the time.

I went back to self-coaching after my July race but I’ve for the most part stayed within the Firstbeat guidelines. I managed to pull out another BQ a couple of weeks ago definitely feel like I’m getting a lot from my hard workouts when properly rested. If left to my own devices I’d be overtrained and likely injured at this point.

 

[Monkswhiskers]

I think this is the best answer, thanks. The actual metrics between AW5 and 935 were very close. I am surprised more people don't complain about the way the native app renders tracks.


I am seeing this mentioned as well. Even the Garmin 530 has the Sony chip and the GPS performance on it was the worse of the 4 devices I tested. I was about to upgrade to a 945 and made a temporary pit stop with the AW5 but after seeing all these plots, I am likely sticking with the 935 longer until Garmin optimizes the SW on their newer devices. AW5 battery isn't robust enough for me to use it exclusively.

The 945 is the only watch that would tempt me away from the AW at this point, I couldn't live without contactless and music now but yes, they seem to have traded off gps accuracy for battery longevity.
Just an extra day of battery and getting to 10hrs gps tracking for the AW and it would be complete for my needs.

 

[TTTedP]

The 945 is the only watch that would tempt me away from the AW at this point, I couldn't live without contactless and music now but yes, they seem to have traded off gps accuracy for battery longevity.
Just an extra day of battery and getting to 10hrs gps tracking for the AW and it would be complete for my needs.

agreed, once Apple has a version that will last a 3 day weekend on a single charge with some activities mixed in, its game over. My 935 is 2yrs old and still has a 2 week battery.

 

[Fthree]

I returned my Fenix3 after seeing similarly wonky GPS results in just normal runs. Nice watch but it was failing at the main reason I owned it.

Other Garmins I'd bought always seemed to have annoying software issues for the first few months, enough so that I swore off buying anything freshly released and would wait at least four months for the unofficial public-beta period to be nearly finished.

The funny thing is I get similar readings from them both a decent amount of the time. I do however notice that the garmin likes to lag a bit on the data side

 

[Fthree]

yes dcrainmaker has also said that. WorkOutDoors appears to not do that! View attachment 865153

I think we can semantic this thing to death. The point is they both have their issues and if you plan to buy one get the one that past the issues gives you the most benefit. For me at the moment is the AW4.

 

[deeddawg]

The funny thing is I get similar readings from them both a decent amount of the time. I do however notice that the garmin likes to lag a bit on the data side

At that point in time I was considering switching to the Fenix3 from a 920xt - and while the Fenix3 was usually on par with the 920xt, it'd go wonky on the GPS distance just often enough that I couldn't trust it.... which is kinda important! Stuck with the 920xt for a while more, then transitioned to the FR235 as my daily-wear. Didn't really need all the 920xt's capabilities most of the time but kept it for occasions.

When the AW2 came out I decided to give it a try, using the Nike+ Run Club app, and did a bunch of runs with the AW2 on one wrist and the FR235 on the other. Sometime during my AW3 ownership I quit wearing the FR235 and since then have pretty much purely been using the AW - went to AW4, and now trying an AW5.

I find I just don't miss all the fancy data Garmin provides.... but then I'm not a competitive runner, I just like to get out and get some miles in, running the occasional 5k/10k/half.

 

[Toonartist]

I've always found my Fenix 5 to over state the distance and isn't that consistent with the same route. The Apple Watch has been very consistent, again, overstates it slightly but not as bad as the Fenix 5. When I use Stryd with AW, I tend to get the best results for distance, pace and cadence etc. The GPS on the Fenix 5 always seems to be off, especially when compared to the tracks created by WorkOutdoors.

The perfect scenario is when WorkOutdoors adds Stryd to the app (which I know he's looking at) and then I'd have very accurate distance and GPS tracks with the option to use a HR strap when the temperatures drop low enough to freak out the optical HRM on the AW.

 

[Pseudo-Fed]

Picked up a 6X sapphire at REI today. Have 6.75” wrist. also have an Instinct, F3, F5, F5+. I had preferred the 47mm size in the F5s, but the new watches have shorter lug widths which greatly impacts wearability. Of course the case is still larger, but as most on the watch forums believe, the lug width makes a difference.

Because I couldn’t find pics I took some with my F3 (non HR) and with the F5+ and the new F6X. Hope this helps some out. You definitely need to try on both if you are undecided about wearability. I didn’t get pics of the F6, but it has shorter lug width than either F6X or last years F5.

My F3 vs F6X:
Untitled by Jeff, on Flickr

F5+ vs F3 (surprised that two I own have close to same lug widths):
Untitled by Jeff, on Flickr

F5+ vs F6X: (this year’s 51mm has shorter length than last year’s 47mm)
Untitled by Jeff, on Flickr

 

[Fthree]

So thinking about getting a AW5. I am torn between the F6 and the AW5 nike edition. I like the F6 and the garmin metrics but hate the watch faces. I love my S4 but really may like the always on display as well as the nike faces.....

 

[worker73]

Always on display vs. Garmin Fenix 5 Plus in the evening (inside).

 

[44267547]

Always on display vs. Garmin Fenix 5 Plus in the evening (inside).

Excellent comparison. It’s interesting, because there’s quite a few complaints about the ‘always on display’ not being very vibrant and difficult to read even in ambient lighting conditions. But gathering by your comparison here, the Apple Watch is far superior in terms of being more ‘readable’ and vibrant. What really helps your comparison, is both of them have black backgrounds, I’d say the Apple Watch wins hands-down based off your side-by-side comparison.

 

[PatrickNSF]

Excellent comparison. It’s interesting, because there’s quite a few complaints about the ‘always on display’ not being very vibrant and difficult to read even in ambient lighting conditions. But gathering by your comparison here, the Apple Watch is far superior in terms of being more ‘readable’ and vibrant. What really helps your comparison, is both of them have black backgrounds, I’d say the Apple Watch wins hands-down based off your side-by-side comparison.

Unfortunately, outdoors is another matter. The AW always-on display for workouts is nearly unusable for running, while the Fenix (or any current Garmin) is easily visible and readable.
[automerge]1570318386[/automerge]

Always on display vs. Garmin Fenix 5 Plus in the evening (inside).

That's probably not the best selection of watch faces for comparison. That Fenix watch face is one of least readable, and the Nike+ one is one of the better AW watch faces for readability.

 

[Fthree]

The one thing that the Apple Watch kills it with is the LTE. Many will say “I don’t need that feature while I’m out running” it is more useful than one would think. I’m questioning how much I actually needing the advanced running readings.

 

[PatrickNSF]

The one thing that the Apple Watch kills it with is the LTE.

Agreed. The LTE has become a necessity at this point. Also, my Garmin has music but the Apple implementation is much better (especially if you subscribe to Apple Music and not Spotify).

Both of these are reasons why I run with both watches now.

 

[Fthree]

Agreed. The LTE has become a necessity at this point. Also, my Garmin has music but the Apple implementation is much better (especially if you subscribe to Apple Music and not Spotify).

Both of these are reasons why I run with both watches now.

Yeah I’m a two watcher as well. If I could find a good way to port my info to strava and garnin connect from the Apple Watch that would be great.

 

[PatrickNSF]

Yeah I’m a two watcher as well. If I could find a good way to port my info to strava and garnin connect from the Apple Watch that would be great.

I use RunGap to move workouts from one system to the other, but lately most of my running workouts (even easy ones) are with the Garmin. I think the Firstbeat metrics from this year's watches are pretty helpful when I'm training for successive marathons (or even half marathons), but that relies on every run being recorded with the Garmin. For those I just treat the AW like an iPod nano with LTE. It's still better than running with a phone.