GPS Performance 5x vs 6X; 6X vs Suunto 9; 6X vs AW4

5X = 1 second recording; GPS + Galileo (FW 14.20; GPS 2.51 beta)

6X = 1 second recording; GPS + Glonass (FW 3.00; GPS 2.50)

You can see the comparison at the link below.

Short version: the 6X GPS tracking was better than the 5X on this run - but the 6X also stopped tracking my heart rate half way through the run. Very disappointing. For whatever reason (trees/water), this run is a challenge for GPS. I have done this run many times with the 5X, and this result was an unusually poor showing for the 5X from a GPS perspective.

https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/public/8cddd97c-a496-41b0-74f5-ec86c7e9c881

Update:

Here is the link to 6X vs Suunto 9. Both were acceptable - neither one spectacular. I have run this route multiple times with a variety of Garmin watches, and the GPS tracking of the 6X was better than the average result with a Garmin.

https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/public/26a69a83-45a6-47f3-76b9-2a79bf781eb8

Update 2:

Here is the link to the 6X vs Apple Watch 4. Just to be clear as to what I consider to be a "valid" test - I am interested in finding the best performance that a particular watch can produce. If that means setting one watch to Galileo and the other watch to Glonass in order to have each watch perform at their best, then so be it - that's what I consider to be a valid test. Also, some people seem to think that just because one system (Glonass or Galileo) has a greater number of satellites available than the other, then a watch will perform better on the system with the greater number of satellites. I am not sure that's true. If a watch is tuned better for Glonass than Galileo, then having 1 to 2 Glonass satellites could be more beneficial than having 5 to 7 Galileo satellites. In any event, according to the GNSS View app, the area for this run had 5 to 7 Galileo satellites available whereas Glonass had 1 to 2, so I tried the 6X on GPS + Galileo for this run. Overall, the AW4 was more accurate than the 6X. I don't think the AW4 receives enough credit for how well it tracks GPS and provides instant pace. In my view, it is the best GPS watch on the market, with the most accurate HR. It is frustrating that Apple does not do more with the information it collects and lacks an app similar to Garmin's app. With respect to the 6X, I have run this route multiple times, and this performance by the 6X was again one of the better performances by a Garmin (and very close to the AW4). The 6X once again stopped tracking my heart rate about half way through the run.

https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/public/61c82510-66eb-4adf-65fc-7c7a356a68ea

Top Replies

All Replies

0 Dr Phil over 6 years ago in reply to KrapfenKringel

My understanding is that the Sony chip has been 'tuned' to work with GLONASS. I'm in NZ and to be honest I don't see that much difference between any of the GPS settings. As usual there are good days and better days, but nothing sticks out as being the best combination. I just leave mine on GPS + GLONASS just because that's what it was when I turned it on the first time.

0 Stromdiddily over 6 years ago in reply to sis651

Not to derail the thread too much but are you just looking at number of available satellites or their actual positioning? If positioning, what are you looking at specifically?

0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to gjmachete

It doesn't matter what device works better with what secondary system. It all depends on how many satellites are available and their location to you at the time of comparison that matters. For a valid comparison, both watches need to be set the same and tested at the same time.

0 sis651 over 6 years ago in reply to Stromdiddily

Available and fixed number of satellites. Available satellites may be more than fixed, that's used for positioning calculation, as they're blocked by buildings etc. The more the satellites, the better the accuracy should be.

0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to sis651

hi all,

regarding what is on the sky at one moment GPS / GLONASS / GALILEO

I found for iPhone "GNSS view" app.

has a map and an AR.

outside you can estimate if are or not satellites above you...and witch kind...

as you can see in the picture Galileo E20 (dark blue) and the two Glonass are masked by the building if I'm to close to the walls.

only GPS 75 is visible.

only as an estimation.

just me,

robert

0 gjmachete over 6 years ago in reply to Ieslei

updated

0 Former Member over 6 years ago

gjmachete said:
Just to be clear as to what I consider to be a "valid" test - I am interested in finding the best performance that a particular watch can produce. If that means setting one watch to Galileo and the other watch to Glonass in order to have each watch perform at their best, then so be it - that's what I consider to be a valid test.

I understand the basis of your test using the different satellite settings. Here's why I say the test isn't valid unless the watches are set the same. You've said the 5X performs better with Galileo and the 6X better with Glonass due to their chipsets. I don't know if this is the case, but for sake of argument we'll say this is true. I too have a couple of apps on my phone that show what satellites are currently in my view. At my location, I rarely have more than two Galileo satellites in my view, but I always have several Glonass satellites. Performing the test as you do, one would expect the 6X to perform better then the 5X at my location. The 5X may do better with Galileo, but if the satellites aren't in view, it won't help. In my case, both of those watches perform better using Glonass as opposed to Galileo regardless of their chipsets. You could take any GPS watch and do a run with GPS only with buildings to your west and an unobstructed view to you east. You could run that exact same route 8 hrs later and have two different quality tracks because of satellite location and/or weather conditions. All your test have shown is at that time, under those conditions, this watch performed better with this configuration. If you want to see if there's a difference in the plots between watches, they must be configured the same and used at the same time.

0 gjmachete over 6 years ago in reply to Former Member

Yes, as I said before, based on my experience, the 5x has performed better with Galileo. If your 5x performs better with Glonass, good for you. If I were you, and if I wanted to do a comparison, then I would set both the 5x and 6x to Glonass. As for this:

If you want to see if there's a difference in the plots between watches, they must be configured the same and used at the same time.

Must be configured the same? No. If you are trying to determine what watch works best with Galileo or Glonass, then I agree that the should be configured the same and used at the same time. For the third or fourth time, that is not what I am testing. I am testing one watch vs another watch based upon what I believe to be its best possible settings. If you think that makes the test "invalid," then you are free to disregard it, or event better, post your own results based upon whatever methodology you think best. Good luck comparing anything to the AW. The last time I checked, you cannot restrict AW to Glonass or Galileo. I guess we can never have a "valid" test of the AW's GPS performance...

0 Former Member over 6 years ago in reply to gjmachete

gjmachete said:
For the third or fourth time, that is not what I am testing. I am testing one watch vs another watch based upon what I believe to be its best possible settings. If you think that makes the test "invalid," then you are free to disregard it, or event better, post your own results based upon whatever methodology you think best

I understand what you're trying to test. There's no need to explain for a fifth time. What I'm saying is because satellites are always moving, and weather conditions are always changing, you won't always have the same results even if the test are performed at the same location. There is no test for the best possible setting for each watch. You can only test the best possible setting for the watch at the time it's being used. If you test a watch and it works great with Galileo it doesn't mean it will work better with Galileo every single time. AM radio signals travel further at night then they do during the day. This is because there's any "extra layer" in the atmosphere during the day that has charged particles from the sun that restrict the signal strength. Reception strength will be different based on when you use the radio. Because satellites are always moving, you'll have the same results with Galileo and Glonass based on their location and signal strength.