Fenix 5 comparison to 5 plus

I was wondering, can you update your regular Fenix 5 to the beta software with Galileo, so that you can then compare the gps??

If of interest to folks, my links below are to a run earlier today with both the Fenix 5 Plus and Fenix 5 set to GPS+GLONASS and every second recording. I gave both watches a 25 minute static GPS ‘soak’ first thing this morning, to ensure both had had sufficient time to acquire any missing satellite ephemeris data before starting. I also then charged both units to 100% battery, to get a direct comparison of drain (for this run, no music on the 5 Plus obviously). Whilst largely suburban, I specifically took a route that was under tree cover for the majority of the time, so that my dog would be in the shade (already getting borderline too hot for him when I set off just after 10am); that meant this was actually a pretty challenging route from a GPS/GNSS perspective (trees in full leaf and in some places the ferns have grown to head height around the path). To make things as equal as possible, both watches are on my left arm, as shown in the attached picture, F5 Plus on my wrist and F5 15cm up on my forearm using a 25mm x 40cm Velcro strap; as I understand it, this configuration is the gold standard for GPS track comparison between 2 watches (note: not so for wrist HR comparison, where watches should be on opposite wrists). I had both watches paired to my HRM Run (gen 1) strap and my RunScribe Plus pods via the RunScribe Plus CIQ DF app (to compare ANT+ connectivity, but ignore the actual numbers as I was using some funky alpha software on the pods that I agreed to test for RunScribe).

Fenix 5 (GPS+GALILEO, Every Second)) https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2800329518
Fenix 5 Plus (GPS+GALILEO, Every Second) https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2800322090

Which track was best? I won’t share the direct comparison of the tracks I did using DCR’s Analyzer tool, as the run starts/finishes at my house and this is a public forum (I’ve got overlapping and offset privacy zones set up on Garmin Connect). So you’ll have to take my word for it, whilst both watches had their good and bad points, the 5Plus had more good than the 5; but not so to be night and day different and both watches were never more than 5 metres off my actual ran track (the F5 has had me running 15 metres in to the lake on this route in the past). What’s more impressive for me, with both watches, is that I carefully replotted my route on mygpsies.com and that gave 7.11 miles; both watches gave 7.13 miles. The F5 has traditionally under accrued distance by 2% on this route in the past, so for both to be within 2 hundredths of a mile (that’s 0.28% of 7.11 miles) is simply brilliant! (That 7.13 miles may even be more accurate than my hand drawn efforts). All in all, from this one of one test, the Galileo thing hasn’t necessarily given us perfect interstellar GPS under challenging GPS conditions, but it does seem to have improved things significantly; in particular the distance accrual. Added to that, the 5 Plus does seem to to have the ever so slightly more accurate track. The 5 Plus also has improved connectivity with the RunSribe pods (particularly to the pod on the opposite foot) and, contrary to the numbers specified on the respective product pages, seems to have better battery consumption under this configuration of settings (after run: F5 91% and F5 Plus 94%).ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1366754.jpg

Great test, Crispin. I wonder if the battery differences can be chalked up to battery fatigue due to your Fenix 5 being older.

In fairness and to reduce variables, next time you run, can you switch the watch positions?

Switching position is easily done. Will be a couple of days until my next run though.

Very very interesting, thanks for posting this!

I did run with my dog and the F5+ and GPS and Galileo and have been very satisfied, too (runnig mostly under trees for the same reasons, btw ;-). No direct comparison, though.

I agree that the battery seems to last longer so far, too. Great relief, as this is very important to me. But could indeed be due to battery drain.

Cheers
Peter

I just wanted to do a quick comparison between the 5 and the 5+. I went out and bought the 5+ yesterday the titanium version. I went out for my first run today and wore both watches today and I'm very familiar with this route I took.
On my observations between the two I saw that the 5+ was always .05-.2 miles ahead of the 5 and the instance pace was anywhere between 5 seconds to 1.5 minutes faster than the 5. There was another thing the heart rate seemed to be more accurate than the 5 compared to runs that I wore the chest strap. The elevation loss and gain was spot on the 5+ versus the 5 was off 10-20 feet.
So I just wanted to throw this out there for anyone that was wondering and forgive any grammar miss takes.. I typed this up on my phone.

bdub what version of the 5 did you have? Are you able to post pictures of the two side by side? I'm interested in the titanium (I currently have the Silver version of the 5) but in the interests of happy wife/happy life I'm a bit worried the titanium 5 plus might be a bit too shiny and obviously new :rolleyes:

Crispin_Ellisdon - Nice and detailed comparison, thanks !

Did you have auto-lap on ? That's where the F5 failed miserably with irregular laps and therefore irregular lap pace compared to the FR235 or FR935. Problematic when training for a marathon and annoying at all times really.

Did you have auto-lap on ?

Yup, both watches are set for 0.25 mile auto lap (the shortest it will let you have). That said, I wasn’t paying too much attention to whether they were lapping at the exact same moment during this particular run. I’ve gotta say, I found that easier to do during my first run with headphones, as the auto lap chimes in over the music and is an excellent prompt to check what the other watch is doing (adding instant pace audio alerts every 1 minute to the 0.25 mile lap alerts, seems a great combination too).

That's a short lap (mine is set to 1km as it ties with the pace unit) and will make differences even more notable, might be a bit hard to keep track after a while though if the laps are irregular ;-) Let us know what you find when you get a chance.

As promised, links below to my run this morning with the watch locations swapped (F5 on left wrist and F5+ 15cm up on left forearm). This time there was a marked difference in recorded track between the two; the F5+ simply nailed the route in areas with challenging reception whereas the F5 wandered off a little (bends through wooded areas, underneath motorway bridges, high sided concrete/steel foot bridges over railways - see the attached photos). This route I have carefully measured at 5.82 miles; the F5 gave 5.74 miles, but the F5+ with superior tracking nailed it again at 5.81 miles. So, in this test, the GPS track accuracy and distance accrual was significantly better on the F5+. (Whilst I did charge both watches to 100% overnight, I sadly forgot to take a note of the battery percentages at the end, so no drain rate comparison to share this time.)

Fenix 5 (GPS+Galileo, every second) https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2805154941
Fenix 5 Plus (GPS+Galileo, every second) https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2805132289

If you’re wondering why the pace dropped dramatically mid run, it’s because I tweaked something on the outside of my left hip (damn painful too) and had to slowly nurse my body back home. Interesting to note the GCT Balance after this point though. That does mean I’ll be taking a few days off running to rest and repair (some strengthening exercises required I think), so unfortunately my run tests will be on pause for a bit.ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1367802.jpg