Interresting that 5X has worse result than 5, but I suppose it can be due to pre-loaded maps in the memory or something like that. On the other side, 5X seems to be the fastest device I've seen from the UX perspective. The scrolling between complex watchface, custom widgets etc. is pretty quick and smooth without any sluggishness. I suppose there is some kind of graphical co-processor or bigger display buffer..?
Yes, something strange going on here with F5 scoring less than Chronos, even much less than VivoHR, is this an early firmware issue ?
Interresting that 5X has worse result than 5, but I suppose it can be due to pre-loaded maps in the memory or something like that. On the other side, 5X seems to be the fastest device I've seen from the UX perspective. The scrolling between complex watchface, custom widgets etc. is pretty quick and smooth without any sluggishness. I suppose there is some kind of graphical co-processor or bigger display buffer..?
Actually this is the only thing I dont like on the F3HR.
A complex watch face lags by 3 to 4 seconds sometimes when first switching to the next widget, or coming back to it, so I basically dont use them, but wish I could.
However, your saying regardless of the Tree Benchmark score the UX is still very fast on the 5X ? No lag ?
If so I will still purchase.
Actually this is the only thing I dont like on the F3HR.
A complex watch face lags by 3 to 4 seconds sometimes when first switching to the next widget, or coming back to it, so I basically dont use them, but wish I could.
However, your saying regardless of the Tree Benchmark score the UX is still very fast on the 5X ? No lag ?
If so I will still purchase.
Definitely, F5X has the smoothest UX of all wrist-worn Garmin devices I have seen. The Tree Benchmark measures operational speed inside the Connect IQ platform (virtual machine) and it doesn't have to necessarily correspond with overall device user experience smoothness and speed.
Interresting that 5X has worse result than 5, but I suppose it can be due to pre-loaded maps in the memory or something like that. On the other side, 5X seems to be the fastest device I've seen from the UX perspective. The scrolling between complex watchface, custom widgets etc. is pretty quick and smooth without any sluggishness. I suppose there is some kind of graphical co-processor or bigger display buffer..?
I wondered about it even before the watches released. My idea is 5X has an external RAM chip to store map data. Thus, maybe it has less memory on CPU SRAM (I think Epix had 128KB on chip while F3 and others had 256KB) and CIQ memory is mapped on external RAM too. Thus, it has some latency to external memory but other models with only CPU SRAM as memory has lower latency, so some better scores in the tests. I don't know how and how much you access the memory and its importance in your tests though...
Also in SDK files F5x has more than 1MB RAM for CIQ apps etc. but as I read here its the same 128KB yet...
