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

Garmin 935 vs 945 GPS Testing

9386496
over 3 years ago

So I got fed up of the unreliable instant pace on my 945 (had two same problem) and decided to buy a 935 to test the difference. I'll be updating this thread as I carry out more comparisons. 

The first run today I ran the usual route and the 935 instant pace was good whilst the 945 was jumping from 5:00/km to 5:25 and even 5:40/km in the same usual spots it always does. It was strange to see the 935 hold 5:05 as I passed the same 200m stretch the 945 always goes haywire. It's good in open roads but not with trees on either side and not around certain buildings. The map of the 945 tracks was terrible (check out the start of the run around the houses it's WAY out, worst I've seen it's usually not this bad so I'll see what happens in the following days. The laps and overall pace are mostly equal as it is with my FR10. Used GPS only for both watches as GPS only works better on 945.

connect.garmin.com/.../6512294628  945

connect.garmin.com/.../6512297485  935

Clear blue skies. 

Such a shame because I can see all the little improvements made to the 945 now, so many little things that all add up that I will miss, they really refined it for example lap history on a saved activity seeing all laps same screen with heart rate too, the options dialog when starting an activity, the sunrise/set widget having 24 hour numbers and sunlight left, screen is less reflective I can see my face in the 935, the heart rate gauge field, having weekly distance on the watch. But he most important thing is GPS, the GPS is already not great so it's important to have the better one. 945 GPS is flakey for instant pace and I'll like to test it on a shorter workout intervals to see how it performs.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to TomaszD

    Great! I also think that if they put the native power using the sensors on the wrist instead of RDP or HRM it will be another failure like pace, to have accurate data you need sensors on the right part of the body.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Ariel

    Not paying another £200 just to get reliable instant pace and it's another thing to carry plus they aren't even accurate themselves. 

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Levon

    Well it hasn't served me well, constantly shoots off the pace on workouts and is pretty much useless running around the boulevard I'll be doing 3:05/km on the FR10 and it says 3:25/km on the 945 which is wrong. I think people just appreciate the standards of the 935 and don't expect a downgrade when they buy the next model.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to 9386496
    9386496 said:
    they aren't even accurate themselves.

    What are you basing this comment on?  I've researched this fairly extensively and what I've read and experienced is just the opposite of what you're saying. 

    9386496 said:
    Not paying another £200 just to get reliable instant pace

    This is clearly your choice. Just as the oHRM has limitations and is less accurate vs a chest strap (different technologies measuring different things), GPS pace has limitations and isn't as accurate as using a footpod.  If pace accuracy is important enough for you to start a thread about it, then maybe you should consider purchasing one.  

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to who knows

    I fully agree with you, I too have done several tests and the pace works only with the foot pod, I use OH1 instead of the chest strap, the first is accurate but a little delayed, the second is more instantaneous but both precise, HR completely wrong wrist especially on strength training.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to who knows

    No, I just want a watch that has good enough GPS like the 935 not awful one like the 945. The pods have their own limitations I don't need it to be dead accurate just not total garbage.

  • 0 over 3 years ago


    935


    945

    945
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/6519567187

    935
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/6519567402


    Todays run, same route as yesterday. The 945 did quite well against the 935 even just as good if not better sometimes as it was reporting 5:25/km instant pace whilst the 935 reported 5:35/km but the lap paces were 5:25/km for that section. but again passing the power station coolers knocked the GPS from 5:35/km to 6:40/km whilst the 935 held a solid 5:30/km. Same with this building in the photos, always reproduces bad results on 945. Both watches reported the same laps and total pace/distance. I noticed either watch will say 5:20/km or 5:40/km and after around 300m they catch up to each other and by the last 900m of the 1KM lap pace they are the same so using lap pace is okay but not a good solution for workouts which are shorter than 1km laps.

    Checking the actual tracks wow the 945 is going off track like crazy the tracks are wobbly and randomly shoot out off my actual path into the 2nd dual carriageway whilst the 935 looks good. I'm surprised the 945 can calculate correct lap pace with tracks that bad. 

    tonight a hill workout test.  

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    Well hopefully 955 will have Sony's dual channel chipset and we can get better accuracy than MediaTek and can stop this argument which one is better :D 

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to jmto

     I aint shelling out more money just to fix what should already be here.

  • 0 over 3 years ago



    This started good, both the accurate but then the 945 goes haywire as usual, 935 smooth as usual. 





    Okay the 945 won on the hill workout. The 935 sometimes was saying 4:05/km sprinting whilst the 945 instant pace was 3:10/km. In the graph the earlier reps on the 935 are just wrong it's saying 3:45/km when 945 say 3:15 which is more correct. Others are 3:19 whilst 945 is 3:04. Also did 2 x 400 and both watches were within 2 seconds of each other so lap pace is reliable even as short a distance as 400s at least in this area. I will do more testing. I know I used different GPS settings but I used the settings that produce best tracks for that watch. I'm gonna use both glonass next as now I can't know if the 945 only won because it was GPS only. Maybe the 935 would of been even better in GPS only.

    945 you can tell it's weaker GPS signal because it can't lock on indoors like the 935, tracks go haywire whilst the 935 stronger signal keeps the tracks correct, the instant pace shooting up a minute slower due to weak signal and buildings crippling the signal. 

    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/6521517614
    945
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/6521517725
    935


    First time I used a chest strap, H10 VS 935 wrist montior.