Fenix 6 Series - 5.76 Beta Release

Hello Fenix 6 customers,

Please ensure that you are downloading the correct beta software for your specific device.

Fenix 6s: https://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=15166
Fenix 6s Pro: 
Fenix 6: https://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=15162
Fenix 6 Pro: 
Fenix 6x Pro: https://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=15168

Instructions for installation are available below the change log on each of the above pages.

5.76 Change Log Notes:

  • Fixed an intermittent issue that could lead to rapid battery drain on music products.
  • Made some improvements to the DogTracker widget.
  • Made several other bug fixes and code improvements.

We have temporarily removed in-activity data field editing in this beta. We have identified a few bugs and while they are difficult to reproduce, we do not want our customers to experience these issues. When these bugs are resolved, this feature will be added back in to software.

Current beta peripheral software version numbers below. New versions are indicated in red.

GPS: 2.60
Sensor Hub: 4.20
ANT/BLE/BT (Pro models): 4.30
ANT/BLE (non-Pro models): 2.10
Wi-Fi (Pro models only): 2.60

Please note, the beta updates released on these forums are not suitable for APAC region devices.

Please send all bug reports to [email protected], and indicate which model of the Fenix 6 Series you have in the subject line.

  • Installed. Curious on new Sensor Hub, what is expected to be improved?

    I have so far seen the SPO2 generally reading 94%, where finger sensors says 97-98%.

    oHR have worked fine for me, all 5.x beta-version.

    GPS registeres distance to short, especially running in deep woods where it is off by 2-3%.

    Flat ground little better, latest run where 11.77km yesterday vs 11.84km on Samsung S10.

  • Installed successfully. Let's see what this new sensor hub version brings!

  • I guess the first question would be how do you know the S10 is correct? Assuming you have verified the S10 was the correct distance then the F6 is off by 0.6% - well within the tolerance level for a tiny single antenna GPS device that has to track you while also taking into account the motion of both your body and your arm - try running with your phone in your hand and see how well it tracks then.

    Being off by 2-3% in as you said "deep woods" is 20-30m per 1000m so again it's well within tolerance. Granted that all adds up over longer distances but what practical difference does it make? I've run through countless GPS watches now and while the F6 might not be top of the group for accuracy it's pretty close and has an overall feature set that can't currently be matched.

  • That is true. I have to do more measurements. What I did last week was one measurment on the same forest-trail-run. The S10/Endomondo always in my hand on all my runs...., the F6 on left wrist, and F305 on right wrist:

    Fenix 6: 8,3km

    Forerunner 305: 8,5km

    Samsung S10/Endomondo: 8,71km.


    This is about the same tendency I have seen on all my forest-trail-runs. Using beta 5.72, 5.74 and 5.75.

    Now, I do not know which unit is correct, just that my S10 always is a little above all. The mobile-phone might be most correct since it also incorporates the GSM signal to it's position-calculation in addition to just the GPS/Glonass signal. (Cell phones uses A-GPS technology - assisted-GPS incorporates using local cell towers to enhance position calculations).

    When viewing the 3 GPS tracks mentioned above on Google-maps, I see the S10 is bang on forest-paths/roads/tracks while the Fenix 6 is "wandering around" not precisely following the exact path I did run.

    Since most my running is trail-running, I feel the F6 is most off. The few runs I have tested on flat-open-terrain-asphalt, the difference is less, as mentioned in my previous post, and yes 0,6% could be regarded within limits for open terrain.

    I will try to run more with both the old F305, S10 and F6 to gather more data.

    But I have seen one other thread for the Fenix 6X mentioning the exact same distance-"problem", and that it could be the metal housing of the F6 in combination with the new Sony GPS-chip that makes the received GPS signal to weak for the small antennas inside the F6 metal casing. The same hardwared Forerunner 945 is more correct on the GPS-tracks...

    So I have my doubts - is this fixable at all with just FW update? And it is not all OK, I paid a lot for the F6 Sapphire Titanium.

  • GPS registeres distance to short, especially running in deep woods where it is off by 2-3%.

    That is absolutely reasonable for a wrist-worn GPS in woods. Even in open country it could be argued that 5-10% is not unreasonable, That we do tend to get better speaks volumes for the quality of work that Garmin have done over the years.

    It's unrealistic to compare a watch on the wrist with a cellphone. 

  • New sensor hub version, nothing about that in the "changelog"...
    if this keeps up next change log will be "Several bug fixes and code improvements" :/

  • Ok, my expectations are maybe to high, but they are based on my old Forerunner 305 wrist watch, which in 2010 was more correct than those days cellphones, and still today very precise in forest-terrain. My logs/measurements from 2010 with F305 closely matches the distances from today with Samsung S10 for my same runs. That is why I question the GPS accuracy of the F6 in forest.

    With regard to GPS distance accuracy, I assume you mean the cellphone (S10) is the most correct.

    My 10 year old Garmin Forerunner 305 is then 2nd - close to the S10 in precision.

    And the "state of the art" Fenix 6 third, but quite off in forest-terrain.

  • I have so far seen the SPO2 generally reading 94%, where finger sensors says 97-98%

    Noticed that as well on various firmware stages. HR is also way off compared to the cheap finger sensor, where my Apple Watch series 3 is spot on

  • Rested with Sensor Hub 4.20 and FW 5.76 - I'm still seeing the same issues with Broadcast Heartrate **outside** of an activity.  

    For easy/moderate effort it seems OK, but as soon as I hit the climb and did a sustained hard effort the heart rate values started bouncing around then nose-dived in the wrong direction.  Heart Rate should be 160+ for that entire section and it's all over the place from 115-140 instead.


  • How is it *during* an activity, though? Seeing as most of us aren't often hitting 140+ HR while not recording an activity.

    It's well-known that the OHR goes into a sort of "low power" (lower sampling frequency) mode when not in an activity to conserve battery life, and that this low-power/low-frequency mode isn't ideal for measuring high heartrates. So if they were to improve the outside-of-activity HR readings, it would kill everyone's battery life, just to appease the 2 or 3 users who like to go running without recording an activity. So I wouldn't expect this to be improved much, probably ever.

    If they provide us an option to choose whether to use low-power mode or high-power mode OHR outside of aactivities, then I'm all for that. Then everyone would be happy. But I definitely don't want them forcing me to use high-power OHR mode 24 hours a day so that you, Allalin, and one other guy are happy with the outside-of-activity OHR performance above 140bpm.