FENIX 7 must haves the wearable killer

Actually, they use similar CPU's to older ones. Fenix 3 CPU could reach higher frequency than Fenix 6X Pro CPU. The thing is they made the software better, so its more fluid, faster, better etc.
Some devices like the ones without mapping capability, may have memory limits too. I haven't checked them for a while...

In my opinion the Fenix 7 needs:

1 Better screen (Amoled)

2 LTE (with phone calls for emergency)

3 Touch screen (only for maps)

I'd like for the Fenix 6 range to be fixed first. 

lol. do you know anything about CPUs? Clock speed isn't everything. Instructions per clock also matter. Look at the FX 9590 at 5 ghz, still got beat by the i5 3570k running at lower clocks.

Thx for the correction.

What I had known that from F5+ Fenixes are faster than F5X to display map tiles.

Also had known that my F5+ has bigger memory allocated for CIQ items than my F3HR had.

So I regard newer Fenixes to be “more able” to cope with more CIQ datafields especially because CIQ programming are heavily restricted by Garmin as it was said by more developers. That is Garmin does not provide all the potential data for CIQ developers, I guess partly due to keeping watch stability and its reactive speed.

Anyway independently from the specifications of incumbent watches I still deem that the limit of 2 fields at the same time is a strong restriction.

I haven't used any watch from Fenix 5+ series but that's probably like you said. Here, I have a simple video I compare route calculation speed of Fenix 5X and Fenix 6X Pro. 6X Pro calculates the route in around 75 seconds and FX calculates in around 90 seconds.

Fenix 3 was limited as it had only 256 KB of SRAM in its main chip. It had 64 KB RAM allowance for CIQ apps. However, Garmin Epix which has the same CPU with Fenix 5X had 32 MB of RAM and it allowed CIQ apps to use more than a MB of RAM.

Garmin may increase the allowed datafield number. However, these watches are mostly preferred for endurance and running more virtual machines with apps will increase the power consumption too, thus decreasing their battery life endurance. Also we don't have their data and statistics, so we don't know how much impact each new CIQ datafield will have on the CPU. Do not forget that, these devices have CPU's running around 100 MHz...

Again thx for your contribution.

I will check battery consumption with and without ciq datafields. But without having concrete data, just summaarizing my impression I dont see that my walk or hike app, both with one ciq datafield, respectively consume less than my run and trail run apps, all the four have 2-2 ciq datafields.

Having a Stryd I am reluctant to “switch off” Stryd Zones, not even the others like Lap+ or 80/20 Run zones, but I will compare walk and hike after removing the sole ciq datafield from one of them.

I do make long walks with  my wife, some of them are recorded as hike, but from now I will split these activities at half distance by saving and starting the other type of app. With this method I will exclude the effect of external temperature which must have a draining effect on these wintertime days.

Cheers

You're definitely right, but you talk about processors really different than each other. Everything is different with them.

Garmin uses Freescale/NXP Keenetis processors and all are ARM Cortex M4 processors with mostly similar capabilities. Why they are preferred depends on the device that's used for. For example Garmin Fenix 3 has Keenetis MK65 processor, as it has ethernet capability to talk with the WiFi chip. Garmin Epix and 5X have Keenetis MK61 as it has external RAM chip support. Later they changed the WiFi chip from TI to Atmel so they don't need a chip with ethernet capability, thus switching to a different chip.

Fenix 3 CPU could hit 180 MHz in HSRUN mode, which is Intel Turbo mode and I think it's not used for power consumption reasons. Epix and Fenix 5X CPU could do 120 MHz and 6X Pro CPU can hit 150 in HSRUN. Epix and Fenix 5X uses the same CPU but Tree Benchmark result of them are different, one has around 1500 points and the other around 2700. Even, I remember with a software update Garmin decreased the benchmark scores of Fenix 5X. After some complaints they increased but not to the first level. The chips are probably running at a lower speed than they can do to save power. Watchdog value of 80000 for older and 120000 for newer watches may be related to their frequency.

Additionally Garmin uses a propriatery OS and we don't know how its whole platform runs on the chips inside. It has different chips with Cortex M4 CPU's and they share duties among each other. For example, sensor hub counts my steps and tracks my heart rate while main CPU is processing and recoding my running activity BLE chip may be running the music playback to offload it from the main CPU. CIQ watchfaces and builtin watchfaces may be running at a different processors. It's not disclosed, we don't know a lot.

kuak said:

Better screen (Amoled)

Amoled would murder the battery life. There is a reason Garmin and most other sport watch brands use MIP (memory in pixel) displays. MIP displays draw no power when the screen content is static and there is no backlight.