Fenix 5 comparison to 5 plus

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.
All of this was done with GPS only on both devices.
Today on a trail run it seem to be a bit more accurate than the 5 was. the total miles on the trail was 4.81 which is what the DNR maps shows the 5 was only giving me 4.61 to 4.71 at the most again with GPS only on 4.61 and GPS + GLONAS for the 4.71. But the main thing is that when I was wearing my HR Run it never dropped the signal the 5 would drop it at least 5 times in the run.

0 hejrobin over 7 years ago

Nice track, but your other runs in Liljeholmen.... not so good :(

Well I noticed as well that the runs in Stockholm was not great. Possible that Gallileo helps better in southern Europe? Need some more runs to have an idea of course.

I did one more run in Italy this morning. Very good GPS track, even though I had a hangover :)

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/2810030772?share_unique_id=10

0 webvan over 7 years ago

Crispin_Ellisdon - thanks for the detailed data. I can see some pretty large differences between the watches. Of course it's hard to tell which one's right when you don't know the route but my experience with the F5 vs FR235/FR935 is that it showed large swings so it could indicate that the FR5+ is providing better lap data.

0 Crispin_Ellisdon over 7 years ago

webvan - Once I’m able to get out running again, I’ll look to do a route that doesn’t start/finish at my front door and allows me to share the DCR Analyzer links (without worrying someone will come around and nab my F5+ from me in my sleep :eek:). As lap pace is derived from the source of distance, it’s the ability to zoom in on the distance accumulation over time graph that may be most interesting (referenced against obvious areas of trees or buildings), as would being able to zoom in in on the current pace graph for comparison. As is always the difficulty; I’d need a third watch with a foot pod (Stryd best I guess) as the most realistic correct values to benchmark again; that would be stretching my running tech collection (I’d have to nab the Fenix 3 back from my daughter and hope that RunScribe get that Stryd accuracy sauce in the next beta update).

0 FlipStone over 7 years ago

Thanks again Crispin. I've been testing Galileo on my Fenix 5 (not plus), and the results are not great. I do think they made some hardware changes with the 5+ to improve GPS tracking.

They did, gps antenna location is different for one (towards the side instead of the top of the watch)

0 Former Member over 7 years ago

Crispin_Ellisdon - thanks for the detailed data. I can see some pretty large differences between the watches. Of course it's hard to tell which one's right when you don't know the route but my experience with the F5 vs FR235/FR935 is that it showed large swings so it could indicate that the FR5+ is providing better lap data.

Hi, thanks for your detailed data about GPS accuracy. According to your experience, the better accuracy in F5 Plus + Galileo is more due to Galileo or new HW? Have you tried to compared some other combinations like F5 + Galileo vs. F5 Plus without? I have Chronos, freshly with Galileo support and I am going to test it soon. When I changed from F3 to Chronos I noticed some improvements in GPS performance, too.

0 Crispin_Ellisdon over 7 years ago

What I focused on testing so far was F5+ vs F5 and both with GPS+Galileo; so the apparent improvement of the F5+ seems to be hardware related (or perhaps a “hidden” software difference), as the F5 also had Galileo. I’m still off running at the moment, so I’ve not got to test any other combinations yet. That said, I generally only like comparing GPS tracks done on the same run route at the same time (and ideally with watches worn on the same forearm - there’s usually a better side for any given bend or close buildings/obstructions, which invalidates the device comparison if they are worn on opposite wrists). Also, I’ve historically seen too much variation between tracks recorded by the same watch, same settings, same wrist position, same route, but on a different day, to trust that any issues/improvements are due to a settings change between tests (ie. GPS to GPS+Galileo) rather than external environment differences (ie. different satellites available in the sky above on the 2 days).

0 eugenelee13 over 7 years ago

Crispin, do you also have a 935 as well? And if so, have you tested the new plus against that? Thanks!

0 Crispin_Ellisdon over 7 years ago

Sadly, I don’t have a 935 as well to add in to the mix (my family think it’s enough that I have a Fenix 3, Fenix 5 and now Fenix 5+ (oh, and an old Forerunner 405cx); they’ve probably got a point :)). So I’ll have to leave the 5+ vs 935 “shoot out” to someone else; but I might just drag out the old SIRF Star GPS chipped (with antenna bulge below screen) 405cx for a comparison at some point.

0 Former Member over 7 years ago

What I focused on testing so far was F5+ vs F5 and both with GPS+Galileo; so the apparent improvement of the F5+ seems to be hardware related (or perhaps a “hidden” software difference), as the F5 also had Galileo. I’m still off running at the moment, so I’ve not got to test any other combinations yet. That said, I generally only like comparing GPS tracks done on the same run route at the same time (and ideally with watches worn on the same forearm - there’s usually a better side for any given bend or close buildings/obstructions, which invalidates the device comparison if they are worn on opposite wrists). Also, I’ve historically seen too much variation between tracks recorded by the same watch, same settings, same wrist position, same route, but on a different day, to trust that any issues/improvements are due to a settings change between tests (ie. GPS to GPS+Galileo) rather than external environment differences (ie. different satellites available in the sky above on the 2 days).

Thank you for your reply. I also tested some watches (F3, F Chronos, V 800, A2, A3) with the same methology - same activity, same conditions, same forearm..and I fully agree with all you wrote..However, currently I do not have possibility to test more watches. I am interested to know, how much the addition of Galileo can improve GPS performance. Could test F5 GPS + GALILEO against F5+ GPS only? Regards and thank you again for your tests.

0 NeilJonesOnline over 7 years ago

The track is incorrectly misplaced by Garmin Connect, as is often the case as GC simplifies the track data on their maps, often leading people to think that every second recording is broken as it looks like smart recording on GC.

A bit OT I know, but I just don't understand Garmin's logic on this. When GPS accuracy is one of the key things your customers judge you on, and when your reputation in this area has taken a bit of a hit with a few of your recent devices, surely you'd want your own site/app to present your GPS tracks in the best possible light, rather than (even) worse than they actually are?