This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Venu vs Forerunner 645

As far as I've read, the new Venu device does not have the running features like running dynamics and performance measurements as of the Forerunner 645 for instance.

What is the reasoning behind this? I guess it's just a matter of different software features which Garmin puts in to different devices just to be able to have a wider range of watches. But frankly, who buys two watches just because you can't get all the features in one watch?

If the Venu would have had those features, I would have bought one without hesitating. But instead, I have to choose between a 645 with poor display or a Venu without the running dynamics.

  • That's the way it's always been with vivoactive device.  More general purpose while the forerunners are running focused.

  • the vivoactive is more geared at general fitness indeed and it has a touch screen (runners typically prefer no touch screen and physical buttons).

    It'd surprise me if Garmin in the near future would bring out a running watch with amoled screen as the battery life with amoled will be less than what the other screen type can deliver, when you have it always on while running for many hours (eg marathon or more) you want the watch to survive the distance.... 

    I wouldn't say the forerunner has a poor display, I think that's a matter of taste, I think the forerunner screens look fantastic :)

  • I don't say that the Venu should replace the Forerunner, I just don't see the point of not having the running features in Venu.

  • The Venu just isn't a running watch. GPS battery life is 6 hours vs. 14 hours on the 645, and touchscreens are a struggle to use while perspiring. While the LCD screen of the 645 is optimized for viewing outside, an OLED is optimized for viewing inside. Which is the better display depends on your needs.

    This is Garmin's first watch with the new display. They'll release a running watch with it eventually. In the meanwhile, there have been plenty of consumers who've purchased both an Apple Watch for everyday wear and a Garmin for fitness.

  • The 6 hours figure is for GPS with music streaming. According to DCRainmaker, GPS without music is 20 hours.

    https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/09/garmin-venu-with-amoled-display-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know.html#comment-3309208

  • Thanks for the correction. That's actually an impressive battery life! Garmin needs to update the specs with that detailed information.

  • It's strange that they don't publish that number in their specs.

    I use my phone for music and my VA3 watch to track GPS & HR during bike rides.
    If the GPS limit was 6 hours I'd never bother upgrading but at a potential 20 hours I think the Venu looks like the watch for me.

    I'm happy with charging it every 2 to 3 days mid week just as long as when I use GPS for a long weekend bike ride, it can handle it.

    The fact that it's the same size as the VA3 helps as I think it's pretty much perfect for my slim wrists.

    I'm looking forward to seeing a proper review that shows the entire UI and finding out if those figures for battery life are accurate. Once the IQ develops start making their own custom faces it should hopefully look great too.

  • venu apps are already in the app store.  Most right now are just ports from other devices.

    https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/devices/venu/apps

  • Would love to see how some of my favorite watch faces look on the new display. When you think about it, that what you'll be looking at most of the time so I sure hope it makes them pop!

  • The number of watch faces on Garmin IQ is pretty low for the Venu at the moment.  Some of my favourite Vivoactive 3 watch faces arent available... yet.