Anyone buying Garmin Fenix 6

[NME42]

The F5 (non plus) was plagued with ANT+ and Bluetooth issues. If you can’t find a deal on the F5+, I’d opt for the 935 (but check the unit you’re buying to make sure all the buttons are working properly).

As a longterm Garmin user (910XT, Fenix 3, 935, 945) I agree 100%. The 935 is a rock solid device.

And one more thing to add: do not buy a F5+, this is a very flawed device which is more or less off the update cycle.
[automerge]1570644038[/automerge]

 

[Monkswhiskers]

As a longterm Garmin user (910XT, Fenix 3, 935, 945) I agree 100%. The 935 is a rock solid device.

And one more thing to add: do not buy a F5+, this is a very flawed device which is more or less off the update cycle.
[automerge]1570644038[/automerge]

How do you find the 945 compared to the 935?

 

[NME42]

How do you find the 945 compared to the 935?

hmmmmmmm....

First, I am a tech nerd doing lots of sports and like new devices. That was my main reason to buy the 945. ;-)

Well, button quality is far worse. GPS reception notably worse, OHR a little better. Concerning training status features, it is interesting but in the end all these values (eg Heat acclimatization of 67%, WTF) made me more doubtful than before. I rely on what my training logbook Runalyze calculates, much more reliable and comprehensive.

The rest of the new features:
- maps : quite ok and useful
- Garmin pay: not comparable to Apple Pay but good to have it as a backup
- music: my main reason as I love podcasts. But quite buggy and oldschool implementation. Pluggin in a cable to do a (unreliable) sync is so 2003ish.

Smartwatch features: no progress since Fenix 3.

Overall a good upgrade but not necessarily required. 935 is rock solid but at the end of feature upgrade path.

 

[MareLuce]

Yep. Have AW S4 SS and new AW S5 SBSS. Also have Garmin F3, F5, and F5+ Titanium. Oh, and an Instinct.

All that and no VivoSmart 4 !?! I'm thinking about picking up on Black Friday. Love the idea of tracking Pulse Ox. I believe that's the only device that does that today

buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/605739/pn/010-01995-10#overview

 

[Pseudo-Fed]

All that and no VivoSmart 4 !?! I'm thinking about picking up on Black Friday. Love the idea of tracking Pulse Ox. I believe that's the only device that does that today

buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/605739/pn/010-01995-10#overview

View attachment 868109

View attachment 868112

Fenix 6 series does also, and I've just picked up an F6X Sapphire...... ;-)

 

[PBz]

Trying to decide between two watches. I need some buying advice.

Fenix 5 (Not Plus) for $210 - Online purchase (also has an extended warranty)
Forerunner 935 for $25 - reddit
Forerunner 935 for $300 - local

Primary use is Triathlon/Training and Hiking (I use map/compass/phone gps for nav)

It's my understanding, after reading DCR's review, that the biggest difference is weight/case material. So I should just save the $$ and get the F5, right?

935 IMO

 

[gr4z]

Fenix 6 series does also, and I've just picked up an F6X Sapphire...... ;-)

Do you still use them all!?! I have a 6 Pro which is excellent but still want a AW5 as well.

 

[Pseudo-Fed]

Do you still use them all!?! I have a 6 Pro which is excellent but still want a AW5 as well.

I'm wearing my F6X AND my AW5 SBSS right now......lol. I'm just wearing the AW today to test AOD on but wrist raise to wake off to test battery. I rotate through but have decided to sell my very new Fenix 5 Plus titanium, Instinct, and even my trusty Fenix 3. All are listed on Facebook Marketplace. I will make do with the F6X and AW.

 

[jdechko]

The rest of the new features:
- maps : quite ok and useful
- Garmin pay: not comparable to Apple Pay but good to have it as a backup
- music: my main reason as I love podcasts. But quite buggy and oldschool implementation. Pluggin in a cable to do a (unreliable) sync is so 2003ish.

Smartwatch features: no progress since Fenix 3.

Overall a good upgrade but not necessarily required. 935 is rock solid but at the end of feature upgrade path.

I do wish the 935 had music, but since I usually only listen while on the indoor bike trainer/ treadmill, it's not a big deal. I stopped listening to music altogether while running.

I quickly gave up on the smartwatch features on my Apple Watch, so that's not a bother to me, and I never actually used apple pay on my watch either.

I'd love to buy a 945, but I can't really justify the cost.

 

[gr4z]

I do wish the 935 had music, but since I usually only listen while on the indoor bike trainer/ treadmill, it's not a big deal. I stopped listening to music altogether while running.

I quickly gave up on the smartwatch features on my Apple Watch, so that's not a bother to me, and I never actually used apple pay on my watch either.

I'd love to buy a 945, but I can't really justify the cost.

I’ve had a Forerunner 35, 935, Fenix 5+, 945 and now a 6 Pro.

For running and triathlon 935 wins as it’s rock steady. 35 is a runners only watch. 945 has music but brought some flaws. 5+ I don’t think should of ever been released as it had and still has a number of defects. The battery was awful. The 6 Pro is incredible but once again has some (minor) flaws. It’s also bloody expensive.

 

[PatrickNSF]

The 6 Pro is incredible but once again has some (minor) flaws.

I find the F6 OHR sensor pretty bad while running and even walking...worse than my 245 (and the Garmins I've used from prior generations). This is definitely an area where AW is better.

 

[Pseudo-Fed]

I find the F6 OHR sensor pretty bad while running and even walking...worse than my 245 (and the Garmins I've used from prior generations). This is definitely an area where AW is better.

Nobody currently beats Apple at wrist based heart rate, but even Apple can't get it accurate where wrist flexion is involved such as weight training or "jiggly" activities like bicycling. I have read on the Garmin forums that the F6 heart rate measurement was boogered up by OS 4.10.

I have compared my F6X (on 4.10--damn auto update) to the apple watch while resting and they are identical--with the AW being faster to change. I have not used my F6X wrist OHR for activities since I always pair a Scosche Rhythm 24 for accurate HR.

 

[rcarter3636]

Nobody currently beats Apple at wrist based heart rate, but even Apple can't get it accurate where wrist flexion is involved such as weight training or "jiggly" activities like bicycling. I have read on the Garmin forums that the F6 heart rate measurement was boogered up by OS 4.10.

I have compared my F6X (on 4.10--damn auto update) to the apple watch while resting and they are identical--with the AW being faster to change. I have not used my F6X wrist OHR for activities since I always pair a Scosche Rhythm 24 for accurate HR.

My AW4 OHR always has a pretty solid while cycling. I haven’t found any activity that gives me at least 90-95% solid reading. The two dips were paused for a rest

 

[kitenski]

945 does PulseOx and can sync music over Wifi

 

[NickYanakiev]

I own a Garmin Fenix 6X Pro- I plan to use the Apple Watch series 5 cellular as a "safety" device. In other words, I plan to run with my Garmin on my wrist with the AW in a pouch or protective case.

If I get a call or, indeed, if I need to make one for whatever reason, I can easily do so with a device just the fraction of the size of my massive iPhone 11 Pro Max.

Anyone else with the same use case?

 

[sharpimage]

Thanks for posting this. I have been thinking about upgrading my sports watch and the Fenix 6 looks nice. But having looked at this in detail, it seems that Garmin is way behind Apple Watch when it comes to Open Water Swim tracking. The AW is consistently able to get a gps fix each stroke when you arm is out the water whereas the Garmins give very coarse, zigzag routes. I get much better swim tracks than anyone at the tri club using their ‘proper, sports watches.

 

[Monkswhiskers]

Thanks for posting this. I have been thinking about upgrading my sports watch and the Fenix 6 looks nice. But having looked at this in detail, it seems that Garmin is way behind Apple Watch when it comes to Open Water Swim tracking. The AW is consistently able to get a gps fix each stroke when you arm is out the water whereas the Garmins give very coarse, zigzag routes. I get much better swim tracks than anyone at the tri club using their ‘proper, sports watches.

Yes, this. I get very consistent results. I'm guessing that the AW is boosting the power/sample rate to the antenna when the accelerometer detects your recovering stroke, simple really you'd think. This was the original reason I bought my AW (3, now 4) and looking at my pal's Garmins/Suuntos etc.no other watch has matched it yet for OW.

 

[AMessy]

Every year I contemplate if I should get the newest Apple Watch or the latest Fenix. The one feature the Fenix is missing that I can’t get over is the lack of LTE.
Ever since getting the LTE apple watches, running sans phone has been sort of liberating. I’m not sure I can go back. I run in a pretty rural area, so having a way to call for help or assistance is a must as it could be hours before a car would pass.
The Fenix has many features I value that the Apple Watch has, but none I value over not having to think about how to carry my phone on a run.
I’m assuming that Apple will close the features gap before Garmin adds LTE calling/messaging.

 

[oeagleo]

Nobody currently beats Apple at wrist based heart rate, but even Apple can't get it accurate where wrist flexion is involved such as weight training or "jiggly" activities like bicycling. I have read on the Garmin forums that the F6 heart rate measurement was boogered up by OS 4.10.

I have compared my F6X (on 4.10--damn auto update) to the apple watch while resting and they are identical--with the AW being faster to change. I have not used my F6X wrist OHR for activities since I always pair a Scosche Rhythm 24 for accurate HR.

I don't have a Fenix 6, but I DO have a 5+. I was comparing the daily, all day heart rate, and it appears that the Fenix series take a HR measurement every 2 minutes. Consistently. While the Apple Watch, (Series 4, WatchOS 6.0.1) varies between 3 and 15 (Yes, 15!) Seconds. During exercise, the AW varies between 2 and 10 seconds, while the Fenix takes a reading consistently, every 4 seconds using a Polar OH1 HRM. The same 4 seconds using the internal HRM of the fenix. Anyone know why the Apple watch tends to forget to take a HR measurement it would seem? HR can do a lot in 15 seconds, although most of the time, it's around 6-8 seconds.

 

[Pseudo-Fed]

My AW4 OHR always has a pretty solid while cycling. I haven’t found any activity that gives me at least 90-95% solid reading. The two dips were paused for a rest

We might cycle differently or over different terrain. I really only tested the AW for weight training and bicycling. After not seeing familiar or consistent results I went back to wearing a Scosche Rhythm Plus or 24. No issues whatsoever with Scosche accuracy or consistency in any environment. One more piece of gear to clean though.

For best possible accuracy with any wrist based unit you need to
1) shave a patch
2) tighten one notch
3) wear a sweat band on the arm above the watch.

 

[kave]

I am a sorry stupid man. I bought an Aw5, I intend to use it as a safety device when sup paddling. 650€ for a device with limited use that will most likely be dead in two years time. I don’t like wearing my phone risking dropping it in the water and I need something to contact help if needed. I think the aw is perfect for this. As a series 0 and 3 user I was under the impression the series 5 would be larger, but not at all.

 

[Fthree]

Every year I contemplate if I should get the newest Apple Watch or the latest Fenix. The one feature the Fenix is missing that I can’t get over is the lack of LTE.
Ever since getting the LTE apple watches, running sans phone has been sort of liberating. I’m not sure I can go back. I run in a pretty rural area, so having a way to call for help or assistance is a must as it could be hours before a car would pass.
The Fenix has many features I value that the Apple Watch has, but none I value over not having to think about how to carry my phone on a run.
I’m assuming that Apple will close the features gap before Garmin adds LTE calling/messaging.

LTE is a game changer. The fenix is super nice though

 

[TTTedP]

Did a quick office walk to compare the AW5 plot and my 935. 935 was in GPS+Galileo which was maybe unfair but it's clear to see how much variation in the AW5 plot there was.

The green line is the Garmin and almost a direct overlay to the actual path I walked. They both had issues with the start (I didn't wait for a firm lock on the 935) but the wavy off course mapping in the AW5 bugs me too much. This was a simple 1 mile walk in open sky.

I used the native Workouts app in AW. The distances both matched exactly at 1.07 mi but the GPS plots are vastly different.

 

[Monkswhiskers]

Did a quick office walk to compare the AW5 plot and my 935. 935 was in GPS+Galileo which was maybe unfair but it's clear to see how much variation in the AW5 plot there was.

The green line is the Garmin and almost a direct overlay to the actual path I walked. They both had issues with the start (I didn't wait for a firm lock on the 935) but the wavy off course mapping in the AW5 bugs me too much. This was a simple 1 mile walk in open sky.

I used the native Workouts app in AW. The distances both matched exactly at 1.07 mi but the GPS plots are vastly different.

I returned the AW last week. Now trying to decide between keeping my 935 + Wahoo Bolt or go single device with a 945. (I tried an Edge 530 already and GPS plots on that sucked as well).

View attachment 871474

So the distances match up between F6 & Aw5, interesting.

 

[TTTedP]

So the distances match up between F6 & Aw5, interesting.

yup, and that is what drives me nuts - that AW can get the distance right and seems to be a very good overall device but yet, the GPS plots are never rendered following the course you took.

I had a longer ride earlier in the post where I also shared a snapshot of weird GPS plots in the AW5 but the overall distance and elevation climbed matched the Garmin 935 very closely. I even compared the HR graphs of both (since they are both wrist based) and the AW had no major concerns there either.

I wish the AW would just plot the right GPS track so it doesn't create some idea in me things are wrong.

** edit ** - I just realized I had my iPhone with me as well. Not sure how much that helped the AW with distances but I've done 2 or 3 of these tests recently while I decided what to keep.

In the end, the AW distances, calories, elevations, all looked very good but every time I looked at the GPS plot, I thought "look how far off that route is" so it created doubt that the reported numbers weren't right. It's only after comparing to another accepted good device that I saw where the disconnect was. My hope was to drop the 935 (since the battery is fading and it didn't have maps) and go with an AW5 / Wahoo set up. Now I think I am going 945.