Fenix 8 data field

The memory limits for data fields on the Fenix 8 are correct. The Fenix 8 allows for 4 different Connect IQ data fields to be active at once now, instead of 2.

Maybe I'm alone here, but given that the CIQ watchface RAM limit for Fenix 7 / 7 Pro / 8 is 128 KB, I don't think it's so crazy to reduce the CIQ data field limit from 256 KB to 128 KB in Fenix 8. How many data fields have more complex code than a feature-rich watchface?

I'd be curious to know how many data fields actually use more than 128 KB. (Garmin might have those numbers)

The old limits of 16 KB and 32 KB (*) were terrible, but I think 128 KB is pretty decent.

(* still in effect for Vivoactive 4, which is fairly recent with a release date of 2020, although ofc it's been replaced by VA5 now.)

I agree it does suck to see things go backwards in one sense.

enki42ea said:

Why is the data field memory limit on the Fenix 8 half the size of the Fenix 7 / Epix 2? Hoping that is a bug cause that makes it more like the Fenix 6

Sorry to be pendantic but:

Fenix 6: 32 KB

Fenix 6 Pro: 128 KB

Fenix 7: 256 KB

Fenix 7 Pro: 256 KB

Fenix 8: 128 KB

If the limit was going back to 32 KB (literally Fenix 6), then I would agree it's a terrible move.

enki42ea said:

Guess I was hoping Fenix 8 would improve the SoC over the Fenix 7 like the 7 was improved over the 6

Interestingly, apparently Fenix 5X had 32 MB of RAM while Fenix 6X Pro had 16MB. Supposedly Fenix 7 has 5 MB of RAM.

sis651 said:

Garmin Epix and Fenix 5X had 32 MB RAM chips, while Fenix 6X Pro had 16 MB.

2529455 said:

In my mind, the Fenix is just an appliance. The Fenix 7 was running an NXP I.MX RT500. It's a single core M33 clocked at an absolute max of 275Mhz with 5MB RAM. If you know anything about mobile compute platforms, that is absolutely woefully underpowered in comparison to even the cheapest Android Wear watches.

Did anybody complain about spending close to $1,000 for a watch with an SOC that ran what is effectively other watches low-powered accessory core as it's main processor? Did anybody notice that the Fenix 6 has 16MB and the Fenix 5 had 32MB?

What about Fenix E and Enduro 3?  Same?

I guess from that perspective 128KB isn't so bad.  Just wish things didn't go backwards and would love to see what more advanced things could be done on the watch with less restrictions.  Plus I guess I used it as a correlation to the level of computing power of the watch in the hopes that the Fenix 8 cpu was more powerful.  Not saying it really needs it but I'm sure there are metrics that could provide interesting data, only they are too resource intensive to be useful in practice.  Or advancements to existing metrics but require more cpu/memory to do so aren't worth it with current device limits

Allowing 4 data fields in an activity is a step forward for many users.  I doubt that more memory would even be noticed by many users.  And how many DFs would need it.. 

7333528 said:

What about Fenix E and Enduro 3?  Same?

Yes, these will allow 4 data fields as well.

jim_m_58 said:

Allowing 4 data fields in an activity is a step forward for many users.

Agreed. Ppl have been asking about this for years, every time a new device comes out. There's a topic about this on the Fenix 8 board.

jim_m_58 said:

I doubt that more memory would even be noticed by many users. 

Not to be pendantic, but they're actually complaining about *less* memory (than the previous generation). But I know what you meant.

jim_m_58 said:

I doubt that more memory would even be noticed by many users. 

Obviously it won't be noticed by users unless a CIQ dev uses it to add features or some other benefits to their data field, especially in comparison to other devices with less memory. And a data field will only use more memory to add features if said memory is available. So it's kind of a chicken and egg situation when you put it like that

jim_m_58 said:

And how many DFs would need it

Yeah, I agree here.