Is the 935 GPS still more accurate than the 945 and if so by how much?

No issues with my GPS (own it for a year now, coming from the 935).

Way in the beginning it might have been a bit less precise, but can't really fault it anymore... mainly running, hiking, biking.

That's good to hear. Did you notice when it was less precise, have you noticed the improvement? Do you find the optical heart rate sensor is better or worse? 

No issues with my 945 but if you don't need maps and music then stick with the older 935 and take the risk of buyers remorse because your purchased old technology.

Only noticed when checking courses in detail... (And since I had a fenix5 which really was bad for me before the 935 I have more of a habit when having a new gps watch). Performance was always just fine for me.

OHR doesn't work as good for me though, 24/7 seems fine. Stable runs ok, but worse for me compared to the 935. For others it's the other way round though, OHR stays a very personal experience. Bought a polar OH1 anyway (as for intervals OHR wasn't suitable anyway and was training for a marathon based on heartrates back then, for which well... a precise heartrate was pretty much required ;) )

right now it works very good and it's comparable to the 935; honestly during the first 6-7 months i wasn't very happy with the performance but with the last updates it got very good, i'd say on par with the 920. regarding the ohr - it depends on many factors - but i was happy with the 935 ohr as well. if you don't need the extra bells and whistles, the 935 is still a very good device (even the 920 still is), if you want music / maps / new widgets etc - then 945 is the way to go. 

It is, but it's hard to quantify how much better and also always it depends, YMMV. 

Source for these new Sony Chipset rumours and why they would be any better than the current one? 

But it's about half year to 955, so I would probably wait.

This also may depend a lot where you live and how good your Galileo reception is.

Generally when comparing both, the FR935 has less wobble in the tracks and running back and forth the same track, both tracks are closer together on the map compared with the FR945.

Most of it you will only notice when directly comparing both next to each other. Much more important than track acurracy is the pace. My impression is that pace is more exact on the FR935 which also could be linked to general acurracy of the chipset.

Yeah I was more concerned about the pace, so far they seem the same I ended up getting the 945 for £350 3 months old like brand new with an official red Garmin strap worth £50 so I could not say no to that deal and all the buttons are clicky rev D. The tracks on the map look as good if not better than the 935 but I think the 935 GPS was a bit better but that could just because my workout weren't as fast today lol bad weather and tired so pace was a bit all over. Will test further and report.

Congrats on your buy. I also have a Rev D 945 after it was replaced by Garmin with my previous Rev B which had an ugly blueish display tint.

I guess you will have lots of fun with it, wish you good luck!