GPS Accuracy

Well,

1. Because I'm just interested
2. Because I wonder how the 5x performs compared to the 5
3. Because it gives more info to other users compared to just the words 'works great for me' from a specific user. It's more objective.

Sure, the most important thing for the specific user is whether or not he or she is happy with it, but for other users doubting about buying for example and actual example helps a lot more...

Here you go. As mentioned in my OP - distance was off because the watch was paused for about 90 seconds during the race as I continued running. Elevation was spot on. Large sections of the race were under heavy tree cover, overgrown paths, mountains, winding single-track, etc.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1705531330

To be honest, I haven't really looked at the track yet. Key metrics (distance and elevation) are absolutely, 100% spot on, which is all I need to become a better runner. Course navigation was 100% spot on as well each time I needed it. Perfect tracks don't matter. To each their own though.

f5x vs 935

So I pulled the trigger and got a 935 in order to figure out if the 5x or the 935 is a better fit for me. I took both out on a run this evening, and there's no question the 935 performed better. Unfortunately I forgot to adjust all the settings on the 935, so both devices are on GPS + GLONASS but the f5x is on 1s with auto pause on, and the 935 was smart recording with auto pause off. You can see the tracks here: http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#3sFYOBJ6

The real difference is apparent in the pace data, which i've put side by side in the image below.

My one question is that at several places in the tracks, the 935 looks artificially straight. Is that a product of smart recording being on? If not, it makes me wonder whether Garmin is doing some kind of cleaning of the data that they could also do on the 5x… I don't know if the 5x can be improved through software updates, but at this point the 935 just seems better. I'll give them a few more tries, but I know which way I'm leaning.

@DKATCHALOV and others

Here's my 30km Maroondah Dam for comparison recorded on a 920XT. Shorter course, but large parts of it on the same tracks.

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1705457588

I don't think there's much wrong with the F5 track by comparison.

@MalcolmLavery: Thanks, looks decent but I see the same symptoms I see with most/all Fenix5... The scribbly tracks which (as I assume) results in the varying pace. I mean, this can easily be fine and good enough for 9 out of 10 but I'm a bit of a nitpicker and now that I am going to train for a marathon I just want that base to be as good as possible (knowing I can get annoyed if I notice issues). But again, I can imagine this being just fine for many!

@DKATCHALOV: Thank you too.. Was this with smart recording btw? I also do not know how the terrain was but I see what I have seen with other F5 tracks, but it's hard to say of course how another watch would perform. The distance is indeed pretty fine all the time (I noticed that as well) but for me the km/mile markers weren't always.

@budish: Could indeed partially be the smart recording but what I noticed overall is that the 935 gives much more stable tracks, very smooth and as a consequence also way smoother pace. That also for me was the reason for the switch, even though I loved everything else about the F5.

@philishambrook: Thanks! Nice to have a comparison, 920xt seems better to me. F5 follows close enough most of the time but lost it in the beginning part (or ending ;) ) a bit... I compared them in mygpsfiles btw, can share the link if you guys are ok with that and ppl are interested. But again, smooth 920xt vs more scribbly F5. Also, F5 seems to loose it a bit more easy while the 920xt is more prone to sticking to the actual route.

Anyway, for me this was the tipping point to return it because I already got annoyed by it now and didn't want to risk getting annoyed even more in the future (and regretting this substantial price) and even though I like the F5 more wrt looks and all, I still don't regret the switch so far.... But hey, it was never a clear cut thing, part of it was because my limited return window although I don't see anytihng changed wrt the source of my decision.

*Edit*
The 'issue' with the F5 is also more pronounced at lower speeds... When cycling I didn't notice anything at all, with running also not as much (but was more noticable), with hiking however it was pretty clear (and I plan to use it for hikes as well). Added the mygpsfiles example of 4 small walks I often do with the dog... 3 times F5 (one was with the 2.72 fw, the others with 2.90) and 1 time 935 (2.95 fw). All 1sec gps+glonass.

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#3up7deAI

Imo the 935 track follows the path very well, even when standing still it doesn't wobble around too much... The F5 does ok-ish but there is much more variation. Anyway, this effect is less at higher speeds and also with larger distances it prolly evens out more but that is the main reason for me to doubt the base gps signal of the F5.

Anyway, my use cases obviously aren't the use case for everybody and what might be an annoyance or dealbreaker for me might be just a 'oh that, I don't see the problem' for someone else. Don't want to come across as an *ss saying one can not like or be happy with the watch either ;) Was just mainly wondering if it might be something improved in future hw revisions/batches or the 5x or whatever.

If Garmin ever addresses these issues - is it a simple case of a software update to resolve? Or are we being naive in thinking this can ever be rectified over the air? Is it hardware and hanging on to the F5 is pointless if you get bugged by these issues?

Given the history of the similarly designed F3 there was already a hint but add to that the fact that the FR935 seemingly uses the same platform (100% same features) as the F5 and exhibits none of these problems, well...

Having said that if you need it as the Fenix was originally intended, i.e. a hiking watch you'd be hard pressed to do better. Competitive runners are bound to be disappointed though.

Given the history of the similarly designed F3 there was already a hint but add to that the fact that the FR935 seemingly uses the same platform (100% same features) as the F5 and exhibits none of these problems, well...

Keep in mind, that the charging connector is on the opposite side for the 935 compared to the f5. Maybe there are even more differences in hardware then only the bezel and subplate design...

True but the emphasis was really on the same platform/features with GPS working fine already on the FR935 vs the F5. Again, unless you're into competitive running it's unlikely to be an issue. The issue is more to how Garmin are now pitching the Fenix vs the F1/F2 or even F3 when it was first released.

So recently 'upgraded' from a TomTom Spark to a fenix 5. Couldn't be happier with most things but it's the GPS that I'm worried about, especially after reading all of these comments.

My partner and I (who still uses a TomTom) ran along a park path, and here's her GPS compared to mine.

- TomTom

- fenix 5


Here's our little jog side-by-side yesterday running north along this path. (I was running on the left.)

- TomTom

- fenix 5

Is it wrong to feel like I haven't 'upgraded'?

I felt the same way when I "upgraded" from Polar V800 to Fenix 3 HR.
It should not be this way but it's a take it or leave it affair.
Although I hoped that some firmware miracle will make the Fenix 3 HR GPS precision as good as my V800 it never happened so I learned that miracles don't happen often when the hardware (chipset + antenna) are just not there, up to the task. In the end made peace with the Fenix 3 shortcomings and learned to live with it.... but also kept my V800 :)