Upgrading from F3HR to F5X

I don't want to hijack the topic, I believe there is a gazillion of pages about this already. It is my belief that it is not the units but the users and their modes of operation what "causes" the problems with GPS and baro. I, too, would be happy with the baro and the GPS if I:

- did not use the unit near trees or in the mountains
- did not have a constant comparison to other units

I know many F3 owners have different experiences with GPS accuracy, but this mimics what I saw with the F3's I had. Mine were great on roads, good on non-mountain trail runs, and almost always 5-10% low on distance on mountain runs compared to my other GPS watches and the watches of those I run with. Switchbacks, canyons, dense cover are all difficult for gps, but other garmin's and ambits routinely had better tracking and consistency in those conditions.

I'll likely get a 5x to test against my goto watch (Ambit 3 Peak) and my backup (Garmin 910XT)and hope to be pleasantly surprised. If not, REI will have my back.

Exactly. Especially the constant distance loss is mightily annoying. I love the group runs. It goes like this:

- A distance marker on the trail approaching.
- 10 beeps of other watches in the group within a few seconds of each other.
- Some more scenic running.
- My F3 beeps.
- Friendly laugh of my mates.
- Repeat at each km.

By km 10 you sometimes don't know if it is so late on the last marker or so early on the next. As I said before, for anything distance critical I use my old 410.

Exactly. Especially the constant distance loss is mightily annoying. I love the group runs. It goes like this:

- A distance marker on the trail approaching.
- 10 beeps of other watches in the group within a few seconds of each other.
- Some more scenic running.
- My F3 beeps.
- Friendly laugh of my mates.
- Repeat at each km.

By km 10 you sometimes don't know if it is so late on the last marker or so early on the next. As I said before, for anything distance critical I use my old 410.

Same issue here, if it's a wooded trail it's about 1/10th per mi off. Just fine if I'm on a trail that isn't covered (I've gone through 3 units, 2 f3 and 1 f3hr to the tune of about 4000mi, so I'd consider it tested) That's my main concern with the 5 series. Can anyone confirm if they've gone away from the Mediatek chipaet ?

Just wanted to see who was upgrading to the F5X from the F3HR and why you were going to do it?

I am a tramp. Forests, mountains. I am buying F5x. F3 ... goodbye :-)

I'm very happy with my 3HR. Although I am very tempted by the 5X because of mapping feature, I am unlikely to get it due to the fact it is heavier. One of the critical uses of my watch is to track my running and the heft of the 3HR is about top of my tolerance. I otherwise love the 51mm size and wouldn't really want to go to a smaller screen size. I'd have to compare in real life before making such a decision. I am also very happy with the battery life of the 3HR so larger battery isn't a tempting feature to upgrade either. The removable wristbands are very cool...but again, I understand new bands will be fully compatible with the 3HR. For me its a wait and see. I will keep an eye on all the real world reviews of the 5 series to see if there is any reason to change.

BTW, any chance they would change the UI of the 3HR to copy the 5 series? I do like the new UI.

Same issue here, if it's a wooded trail it's about 1/10th per mi off. Just fine if I'm on a trail that isn't covered (I've gone through 3 units, 2 f3 and 1 f3hr to the tune of about 4000mi, so I'd consider it tested) That's my main concern with the 5 series. Can anyone confirm if they've gone away from the Mediatek chipaet ?

I would not point the finger towards mediatek chip alone. Look at what Suunto did with Sirf on the SSU. I constantly compared F3HR and SSU for a period of one month, and the SSU was more off than F3HR except on 2 activities. (approximately 10% of the test cases). So if the chip was to make the day then SSU should have been clearly better.

If I end up buying a Garmin fenix again....the 5x is the one I will get.

1) The size does not bother me. I have worn the 3hr for nigh on a year now. It doesn't cause me an issue due to it's girth, nor does the weight. Even though it is a smidge bigger than the 3hr, the 5x is just fine by me.
2)I want the maps/need the maps . Simply put, the fact it can chart out runs for you alone is flat out awesome (if it works). I think it's something like (3) different options for the type of run you want to do. Where I live, we might have a crapload of trails (paved) but no-one either tracked a route (i've checked....extensively) or uses Garmin devices. Also knowing gives me a better goal to strive towards.
3) The price is the same as the 5s saph and the 5 saph. As I said before the size isn't a bother so why get the smaller version.

I say if I buy one, because with Suunto's valencell model hitting the shelves roughly about the same time and potentially a Polar v800 replacement coming, there are options. What each watch brings (or doesn't) or does better (or worse) to the F5 line will be scrutinized and reevaluated by pros and users alike for some time--i'm just gonna sit by and wait for the general conscious.

What makes you think the 5x will be a more stable device? If any lesson can be learned from past experience with Garmin, the 5x won't be a stable device until at least 6 months after its release.

If you are lucky! Some of us never get of bugs.

Hoping that Epix story will not happen again...