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

FR645 or FR935

Former Member over 7 years ago

I currently have the Vivoactive HR. I upgraded shortly to the VA 3, found out quickly that it was not going to work for my marathon training & speed work outs. I do a lot of cross training, cross fit type work outs, that is why I had the VA HR. It worked out pretty good, but I wanted more info from my runs. I also really wanted a watch with sound as a run/walker who loves running with my friend who has a Garmin with an audible beep for her intervals. I want to upgrade my VA HR, I ordered the FR935 and it's on it's way actually...but I am debating on returning it like the VA 3 and waiting for this watch, minus the music. I don't plan on any tri's in the near future, I did a duathalon & was fine with just switching activities.
Is there any major reasons why I would choose to keep the 935 over the 645??

0 Whitesnake83 over 7 years ago

Main reasons:
.) The FR935 has more functions, but the price is - at the moment - similar to the 645M (~ 450 Euro)
.) The FR935 has a bigger battery and overall size and the black design looks way more better than the FR645 (or Fenix 5s silver), you can read the screen better
.) FR645 has no WiFi, no tempature-measurement, no altitude-measurement
.) FR645 has no touchscreen

0 2goBeyond over 7 years ago

Main reasons:
.) The FR935 has more functions, but the price is - at the moment - similar to the 645M (~ 450 Euro)
.) The FR935 has a bigger battery and overall size and the black design looks way more better than the FR645 (or Fenix 5s silver), you can read the screen better
.) FR645 has no WiFi, no tempature-measurement, no altitude-measurement
.) FR645 has no touchscreen

FR645 has optional music on board
FR645 has tap pay

If the two above don't matter to you, the FR935 is the better choice. Also I think the 645 doesn't support Bike power?

0 gazcaddy over 7 years ago

FR645 has WI-FI, has a Theromometer and a barometer.

935 is better if you do multisports where as 645 is more for just Runners. 935 is at least 100 Dollars/Euros/Pounds more expensive.

0 Former Member over 7 years ago

Main reasons:
.) The FR935 has more functions, but the price is - at the moment - similar to the 645M (~ 450 Euro)
.) The FR935 has a bigger battery and overall size and the black design looks way more better than the FR645 (or Fenix 5s silver), you can read the screen better
.) FR645 has no WiFi, no tempature-measurement, no altitude-measurement
.) FR645 has no touchscreen

This is a pretty poor summary.

Point 1: The "more functions" are basically multisport mode and open water swimming, plus some UI additions (quick menus etc). If these are important then the 935 is what you want.
Point 2: While the battery life is a lot better on the 935 (24 vs 14 hours), the screen size is the same (1.2", so they will "read" the same). The 935 is bulkier precisely to give you that extra battery life. Also, not everyone likes a big sporty watch (i don't), especially at work etc.
Point 3: As gazcaddy said, the 645 has all these things.
Point 4: Neither the 935 or 645 has a touchscreen. Given we're comparing these two watches, i'm not sure what your point is.

And then as jstpassaro said, the 645 has Garmin Pay and music. If these are important to you, the 645 is your only choice right now.

Basically, if you want a more modern looking watch and don't care about multisport, save some money and get a 645 (assuming the reviews are good when it's finally released). If you want the multisport, need/want more battery life, and/or don't care about the size and extra cost, the 935 is what you want. Choice is good!

0 timgrose over 7 years ago

If you have a 935 already (or will soon) then IMHO you might only want to change to a 645 for the music. As a runner pretty much everything looks like will be the same. And rereading your post, you don't actually want music anyway.

0 jim_m_58 over 7 years ago

With the side-clamp charging cable on the 645 (like the 23x/630/735), that should make it easier to "charge on the go", so battery life can easily be extended. (you can connect a charger without taking the watch off during an activity). With the connector on the back of the 935, it's not easy to do (you have to take the watch off, and lose the ohr during that time)

With the longer battery life on the 935, you may not use "charge on the go" that much though.

0 chunkywizard over 7 years ago

good point Jim!

0 kurtie_bcn over 7 years ago

FR645 has no touchscreen

It may be personal taste, but I don't like touchscreen on watches, prefer buttons...

I've been using a 230 the last two years, coupled with an Scosche optical sensor... and happy with it. 645 without music (I don't run with music) just gets all the right checkboxes for me... baro altimeter, temperature, tracks, better looks, more autonomy (compared to a 230), 24/7 heart rate monitoring, more running measurements... 935 is also very sweet, just that I won't miss any of the things that it has over the 645 (I am a runner), and the price of the 645 is on the edge of what I am ready to spend for a gadget... otherwise I would own a Fenix or a 935 right now, but I don't. A 645 will be probably too tempting to resist... waiting for reviews and if it performs as expected and is bug-free for a new device, I will go for it.

0 R_Tellis over 7 years ago

I could've sworn that I read that optical HR equipped watches that can charge during activity turned off the sensor while connected to power. I know that in standby/watch mode the sensor turns off when charging so maybe I just implied, to myself, that this was the case during an activity.

0 JosianeZhou over 7 years ago

It may be personal taste, but I don't like touchscreen on watches, prefer buttons...

I totally agree. No touch screen is one of the reasons I want to upgrade my 630 to 645 - I don't know how may times I or my running buddies screwed up my running workout because of the touch screen, and I'm so glad Garmin finally gets rid of it :cool: