Related
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

245/935/945/F6: most accurate Garmin Watch for Runners?

2936178
over 4 years ago

Hello everyone, this is my first post on Garmin Forums!

I'm a runner mainly competing in long distance races (half & marathons), upgrading from an old FR220.

My main concern is GPS accuracy : ability to track distance correctly, and measure real-time pace in a relative precise manner (some GPS devices seem to handle that better than others even though a footpod may also be considered). Not necessarily interested in firsbeat metrics. Music would be a nice to have though ;)

I’ve went through a lot of reviews, forum threads + conducted my own research on Strava (looking at tracked distance on recent Marathons & Half-Marathons).
So far my choice narrows down to the following devices:

- FR 235: by far most used device on Strava on long distance races and distance tracked seem simply excellent. Device is fairly old and may soon reach End-of-Support but is that an issue?
- FR 935: 2nd most used watch right behind FR235, often praised for its accuracy on reviews + forum threads. 
- FR 945: struggled at launch but latest firmware updates seemed to correct many issues w/ GLONASS. 
- FR 245: same as FR945
- Fenix 6 Series: reviews do not praise its GPS accuracy yet a lot of people report excellent real-time pace tracking with firmware updates. Couldn't find many F6 users on Strava, distance tracked seemed very good (about 300m off on average on marathons) but the sample was very small. 

I've been undecided for a while and would be happy to hear your feedbacks. 
Is there a general consensus on the most accurate device?

Thanks!

  • 0 over 4 years ago

    My FR735XT is a lot more accurate than my FR945... GPS+GLONASS

    Hoping the future firmware update will improve it...

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to tess

    I don't do trail so the absence of a barometer isn't much of an issue.
    Money isn't a problem neither but for the sake of buying a nearly 3yo watch, perhaps a heavily discounted 935 would be a good option? 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to Edward

    Disappointing indeed given the price tag of the FR945. Perhaps Garmin is gonna come up with a solution and fix it (just like FR235 had its glitches at launch). Difference is product release cycle in technology is shorter than in 2017. With Garmin releasing about 4 new watches every year I don't see them shifting resources to focus on software support / fixes. 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to 2936178

    1st 945:Down button would get lodged in the housing then stop functioning altogether. Owned for approx two weeks and sent back to the vendor
    2nd 945: Battery drain in basic activity tracking mode (with a single tracked indoor activity w/no GPS) was approx 40% per day, every day, for months. I tried ALL the troubleshooting I could do on my own. Finally called Garmin, watch (per Serial Number/Pack number) was listed as defective (Also a rev C model). I sent back for a brand new watch, which I am assuming is going to be a Rev D model. I will find out later when it is delivered.

    I was wary of the 945 from the beginning, so I held onto my 935. At the very least, I figured I'd keep it around as my alt when charging the 945.

    I am going to keep the 935 after this now 3rd 945 regardless.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to 2936178

    I moved from the 235-245. A huge step up, better screen, more vibrant colours, a fresher looking design and I find the extra FB training data very useful (and accurate) it’s also more comfortable to wear and I’m sure battery life is better too  

    You’ll see the 235 heavily discounted now as it’s the old model. 

    If the vast majority of your time is spent running the 245 will be perfect. 

    I would buy, try it for a week or so and if you don’t like it return it. 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to jmto

    I couldn't agree more... Used to have a 935 and always worked great, now I am waiting a my 2nd 945 (replaced under warranty) and looking forward if firmware 3.30 is better than the previous. Worthy noting that these GPS will always have some error (accuracy of about 5m or 15ft if you prefer) but are good enough for recreational/training purposes.

    Sony's GPS chip consumes less battery but is not as accurate as MediaTek's one but due to Garmin issues (probably rush to release the product, not enough tests/sufficient development) the battery consumption advantage has not happened to the consumer's point of view.

    There are more 235 on Strava as they were cheaper than the 935 offering better Value for Money. The same thing will probably happen again with the new generation (245/945).

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to caferey

    Yeah I could give it a try for a week, though after spending so much time benchmarking I'd rather get it right the first time ;)
    For sure the 245 screen is much better (brighter + resolution), what about 935? Really hesitating between the 3 devices at this point 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to sdantasbvi

    What a mess with the 945s really. We've seen many discounts over the past few days, wouldn't be surprised to see these are either refurbished / returned devices or rev A/B models w/ sticky buttons 

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to 2goBeyond

    So sorry to hear about this mate, hope you will get a fully functional device this time.
    Really tough to device between 935 & 245 at this stage.
    FR935 is a bit like Polar's V800, outdated yet a very solid & reliable device.

  • 0 over 4 years ago in reply to 2936178

    As an update, I just got my new 945. It was a rev D. I figure between setting everything back on the watch and the power consumption that comes from it, this first outing isn't going to be a useful marker in regards to how the battery life is on it. Perhaps in a week or two, I'll have a better understanding of that.