Screen Resolution Vs Battery life

Since some discussions emerging about next generation watches I was thinking what we should expect. I am using Garmin since Fenix 2 (I have F6 Solar) and also used other smart watches such as Samsung Galaxy and Amazfit Stratos 3 Sport watch.

Some people mentioned next generation models should have a better resolution screen or OLED which significant decreases battery life.

Compared side by side Stratos Transflective 320x320 display with F6 260x260 display F6 is better.  I prefer F6 larger fonts and icons which are far more visible when I check my watch from distance during my run or cycling. I don't need tiny fonts to read long texts or other advanced smart watch features in a pure sport watch.

In addition Garmin competitors (Polar, Coros, Suunto 3/5/7) also use mid resolution displays and if we compare with Garmin Venu or Suunto 9 high res displays they provide disappointing battery life

I would definitely prefer increased battery life, more responsive menu's, lighter casing, SW improvements and maybe a touchscreen and some aesthetical changes.

  • a touch screen adds weight decreases battery life and increases cost.

    it is also terrible for an outdoor watch as trying to touch or swipe etc while moving is a nightmare, and clothing can touch by mistake.

    Buttons to move around the menus while moving is also much superior.

    Stop the feature bloat and make the S/W reliable

  • Touchscreen is TERRIBLE for a sports watch. Save those for the Apple Watches and other such watches. Leave it off sport watches. My primary reason for upgrading from a VA3M to a 6X was that I couldn't stand having a touchscreen.

    1. Touchscreens are never easy to figure out how to interact with the functions - do you swipe up, left, down, right, single tap, double-tap, tap and hold? Tactile buttons always do the same functions, it's much easier.
    2. Touchscreens are always covered in greasy fingerprint smudges.
    3. Touchscreens get "touched" on accident way too much. Far too often, my VA3M would buzz and tell me it did something (marking a lap, pausing the activity, going into the menu and changing some setting) because it accidentally touched something. Sure you can "lock" the screen, but why would you want to have to do that?
    4. Trying to use a touchscreen with sweaty fingers is a nightmare.
    5. Trying to navigate the UI with a touchscreen during intense exercise is pretty much impossible.

    Sure, you could have BOTH a touchscreen and the 5 tactile buttons with the option to disable the touchscreen, as some have suggested, but the problem with that is every real athlete is going to NEVER use the touchscreen, but they'll be stuck having to pay extra for it anyways.

    OLED and AMOLED are battery killers. They also do NOT belong in the Fenix watches - at least, not with today's OLED technology. We require always-on screens that always displays full data (not just some battery-saving screensaver). And we require our watch batteries to last at least 20+ hours in GPS mode, while the screen is always on. That simply is not possible with OLED with today's technology. If someday the technology is advanced enough to do that, then great... but until then, leave the OLED screens out of the Fenix.

    Display resolution - on that point we agree. If they could cram more pixels into the existing Fenix screen technology, with minimal additional battery drain, then I'm all for that. I also think there's room for them to increase the screen diameter without increasing the watch size - for example, on the 6X they could get rid of the black bezel behind the glass, with the tick marks on it, and make the screen bigger without changing the metal bezel at all. I'd totally support that upgrade.

  • I also prefer button controls that's why its not a major concern. 

    Higher screen resolution makes sense when we want to show more information on a screen with smaller fonts, but it will be more difficult to read during exercise. Obviously it will give more clarity but this is more useful if graphic elements are used.

  • I agree with higher resolution - in addition to being able to display more information, the screens wouldn't look like pixelated graphics from the 80s. This can be accomplished without changing the current screen tech. No need for a colorful/bright battery-draining AMOLED, just sharp/modern/retina resolution with the current screen tech seems like a reasonable compromise given the current state of battery/screen tech.

  • From the distance I check my F6 screen (30 to 60cm) its impossible to notice pixelated graphics. I took two pics one very close (approx 10cm and one from 40cm). At normal distance everything looks good - from very close its slight pixelated but I never check the watch so close. 

    My point is that if tis not possible to provide a better resolution without sacrificing battery I will always choose battery life!

  • I simply do not understand the use-case for OLED, if you you a look at the screens you are presented with on Fenix watches, 99% of it are numbers or graphs - these simply do not need high resolution or 16 million colours.

    I think maps are perhaps the only case I can see a benefit - even then, having had a Fenic 5+ and now Fenix 6 Pro I find maps totally impractical on such a small screen, and this is also the only possible case I can thing or where a touch screen for scrolling or zooming in and out would be useful.

    I would prefer Garmin focus on core competencies - GPS accuracy and internal heart rate sensor accuracy in particular.  In all honesty, Garmin haven't had got nailed yet, it doesn't matter how much resolution is on the screen if the underlying data is inaccurate.

  • No touch screen, please! I prefer more battery life, more customize default Garmin watch face may be. I don't want to use third-party watch face via IQ since it kill the battery life, and please fix the current problem before release the new watches. 

  • Between the 240x240, 260x260 and 280x280 screens, I can't really tell a difference. I agree resolution isn't critical on a sports watch. Legibility is really the most important thing IMO. I'd love if the next generation of MIP display had higher contrast between black/white, and the colors were a bit more bright, but it's mostly a nice-to-have. 

    My biggest gripe with the watch is that it's a tad unless in direct light, but part of that is because I got the Sapphire version.

  • The pixel density between the 240x240, 260x260 and 280x280 screens is the same, so that's why you can't tell a difference in resolution between them. But the size is substantially different. The 6X screen is enormous compared to the 6S.

    I agree that the resolution of the current Fenix MIP displays is mostly good enough. For 99% of what I do, it's more than enough, and I don't notice any pixelation.

    However, with maps, I would appreciate a little more pixel density on these screens, if they're able to. Depending on what you use for maps, and how you have them configured, there can be a LOT of information on the screen - more than the 280x280 pixels can really handle. I like to have lots and lots of information and detail on my maps, and find that the current pixel density really struggles with it. Especially with Birdseye Imagery.

    I like the display pretty well the way it is, and I wouldn't be heartbroken if they don't upgrade it, but I can honestly say I probably won't spend money on a Fenix 7 unless it comes with a larger and/or higher-resolution MIP display.