Antenna Design - Fenix 5/5S vs. 5X vs. Chronos vs. Fenix 3

Former Member
Former Member
There's been a number of reported GPS/Bluetooth/ANT+ complaints and issues with the Fenix 5 and 5S so I took a look at some FCC docs to try and glean some information. Before we get started, please note that everything listed here is from generally crappy FCC pics and basic deductive reasoning, so please take with a grain of salt. Some background:


  • GPS, Bluetooth, ANT+, Wi-fi are all based on electromagnetic radiation; their wavelengths are just different
  • When transmitting and receiving aforementioned electromagnetic radiation, or radio frequencies in this case, the more power and sensitivity the better, leading to a higher signal to noise ratio
  • When it comes to industrial design, some materials are RF opaque and some are RF transparent. This is why your aluminum iPhone (RF opaque) includes those plastic antenna lines (RF transparent) to allow it to transmit and receive
  • This obviously presents a challenge for watch makers like Garmin who want to use premium materials like metals in their design. Garmin's answer to this is their branded 'EXO' antenna which essentially embeds an external antenna into the metal watch bezel and then connects it to a second antenna (inductively?) inside the watch case. Garmin's patents in this space are a good background read on their design and approach. Patent one and two


With regards to GPS, Garmin has now used the EXO antenna in three different sets of hardware, the Fenix 3, Chronos, and now Fenix 5. The Fenix 3 developed a reputation for having poor GPS performance, and according to this article by Appelmoessite, Garmin addressed many of these issues in the Chronos. The claimed improvements:


  • Redesigned EXO™ stainless steel bezel, screws moved to the bottom leaving a nice round bezel on top.
  • Redesigned EXO™ “spacer” / real antenna. Inside the Chronos is the antenna which has the shape of a smile which someone once called the “spacer”
  • Antenna mounted on main PCB board. No big springs to make contact with the antenna, everything has made smaller which better controlled connections.
  • Redesign of “1st stage” electronics to better match the antenna and receiver IC.
  • Redesign of “2nd stage” electronics, receiver IC (MTK) with corresponding passives.
  • Second shielded main room for all the other electronics.
  • Redesigned ANT+ / Bluetooth antenna which is on the other far end of the PCB so the influence on the GPS is minimal.


In terms of the alleged Chronos improvements and whether or not they trickled down to the Fenix 5 line: based on the FCC internal photos, it seems that 3 and 7 are not included in the Fenix 5. In the F5 the second antenna is still connected to the board with springs and the GPS chip (Mediatek MT3333?) is still in the same EMI shielded compartment as all the other ICs, not spaced off into its on compartment on the Chronos. That being said, the 5X board appears to show a chip that may be in its own shielded compartment, but it's not possible to tell if it's the GPS chip or if it's fully shielded in its own compartment. It's impossible to verify 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 from the docs in FCC photos, but there's enough here that I tend to believe Appelmoessite's claims.
  • Hah, I knew from that pretty distinct frequency range. :D I'm working as an MRI RF coil developer. If someone got me a nice CAD model of the Fenix I could run it through some 3D EM simulation tools to get the radiation patterns.
  • bringing this really good discussion back to the top because i'm curious about the 5/5Xs antenna's ability to receive the Galileo frequencies which appear to be slightly different than the GPS frequencies. See Table 1 of this document http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Resources/gpsworld.february09.pdf

  • The galileo`s E1 band is placed in same place, but slightly larger than L1. If it can receive L1 it can receive E1.
    http://galileognss.eu/galileo-frequency-bands/
    The other bands tight be trickier to get in the same antenna, but still plausible. But as far as I can see on mediatek support for galileo the mtk3333 doesn`t support other bands.
  • Good article, that, yeti, thanks for posting it. Matthias is correct, the F5 only uses L1 and the overlapping bands for GLONASS and Galileo. So it's just a question of the bandwidth of the antenna over that band (usually described as the Q factor, centre frequency divided by bandwidth - higher values equal better selectivity for the tuned frequency and this is easy to compare across different antennae). I don't know what that would be for either the internal antenna or the bezel loop, but I can speculate:
    Galileo and GPS are centred at the same frequency, GLONASS is a little higher. GLONASS was in the original design. If the antenna was properly optimised for GPS+GLONASS, then it's highly unlikely that its gain is badly down at the low end of the Galileo band (it's less than 20% more bandwidth than GPS+GLONASS). If it was optimised for GPS alone, then the performance for Galileo might be down a bit as the bandwidth is a bit more than 50% wider, but it'd be better than the GPS+GLONASS performance anyway.

    My feeling is that antenna design for multiband watches is going to be challenging, and doing it with a Fenix-style metal bezel could be very hard. The frequencies are so far apart you'd probably want something with a double resonance, one at each frequency, rather than something wide enough to cover both, which would have horrible rejection for noise in between the signals of interest. I hope I'm being too pessimistic :)