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

735XT vs fenix 3

Ok guys here is a comparison in a park I run in often. About half has medium tree cover this time of year.

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#ktW3i8ts

You can see the 735 tracks are much better, even in this environment, where I would not say it is overly difficult. Interesting distance accrual was dead on at all points of the run at every point I check both watches were within 0.01 miles of each other the entire run.

Another interesting point, I had the fenix 3 using footpod instant pace and the 735 on GPS instant pace and on all times I checked they were within 5s of each other and even better, the 735 was very stable and never (when I checked) gave an untoward results.

Unfortunately I forgot my chest strap, but can say HR was within my normal range for this pace and this run at all times.

Elevation plot for 735 does not look as good as fenix 3 unsurprisingly (elevation correction was on for 735 data), but I am not sure this was transmitted to the gPX file I used in mygpsfiles, because in GC the +- elevation was 42 ft gain and 43 ft loss which is higher than f3 result (10 ft Gain 13 ft loss). I suspect better smoothing of GPS elevation will result in better results for this in the future.

0 Teriemer over 9 years ago

Ok guys here is a comparison in a park I run in often. About half has medium tree cover this time of year.

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#ktCbWQol&del=tWU9WBxs

You can see the 735 tracks are much better, even in this environment, where I would not say it is overly difficult. Interesting distance accrual was dead on at all points of the run at every point I check both watches were within 0.01 miles of each other the entire run.

Another interesting point, I had the fenix 3 using footpod instant pace and the 735 on GPS instant pace and on all times I checked they were within 5s of each other and even better, the 735 was very stable and never (when I checked) gave an untoward results.

Unfortunately I forgot my chest strap, but can say HR was within my normal range for this pace and this run at all times.

Elevation plot for 735 does not look as good as fenix 3 unsurprisingly (elevation correction was on for 735 data), but I am not sure this was transmitted to the gPX file I used in mygpsfiles, because in GC the +- elevation was 42 ft gain and 43 ft loss which is higher than f3 result (10 ft Gain 13 ft loss). I suspect better smoothing of GPS elevation will result in better results for this in the future.

Thanks for sharring Chimpware. Do you mind posting links to your GC activities. I'm interested in seeing how GPS pace compares to F3 with FP. In advance, thanks :D

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

735XT Run - https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1176849102

fenix 3 - https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1177369453

If you do some analysis on pace please post it. As I mentioned f3 was using footpod instant pace and 735XT was using GPS.

0 peakrodent over 9 years ago

3108

Hi Chimpware,

The MyGPSFiles URL doesn't seem to work for me - can you check it please?

I quite fancy getting the 735 as a daily run watch and not for hill running. Glad it's looking good so far!

Thanks,

Derek.

0 PatrickNSF over 9 years ago

I posted this in the fenix/735 companions thread in the fenix 3 HR forum, but thought it might be helpful here as well –

Here's a consolidation of the three runs I've done with both watches –

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#ki0lkLkm

As I noted in the fenix 3 HR forum, I think elevation is constantly lower for me with the 735 than the fenix. But tracking is better (even with GLONASS on in the 3rd run), and for me OHRM is better (given the way the watch sits on my wrist). The 735 display works better for me outside during my runs, though obviously the fenix screen and backlight is far superior for general watch use.

It'd be a "no reservations" call for me between the two if the 735 had a better display/backlight and they slapped on a nicer looking bezel for day-to-day use. As it is, given that my primary activity is running, the 735 is a much better fit for me as far as comfort and, based on my limited comparisons, functionality.

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

Hi Chimpware,

The MyGPSFiles URL doesn't seem to work for me - can you check it please?

I quite fancy getting the 735 as a daily run watch and not for hill running. Glad it's looking good so far!

Thanks,

Derek.

Link is updated in original post.

0 peakrodent over 9 years ago

Thanks!

The 735 really does appear to track much more smoothly. I've just purchased one - will keep my F3 for hillrunning and really long runs!

0 Teriemer over 9 years ago

So here's my very first run with 735XT (and F3 on my right wrist). But oh boy with 735XT on distance acrual and tracking...(!)

On a well known route which is 11,15 km; the 735XT got that to 11,47 km (whhaaaat). That's 0,32 km too long. The F3 got that to 11,08k. Looking at the tracking for 735, it's clear that it had some odd quirks a few places. It could be related some thunder storm coming our way tonight?! I sure hope so, cause when looking at the result you others get. This is quite bad. Also in this case, F3 clearly did better.

Note that the route goes through a small Forrest. This Forrest is totally covered due to spring and well known to be quite challenging for GPS watches. However the 735 did very good in instant pace, beeing almost on par with F3 which had auto-cal. FP. Very nice to see. Take a look at the charts. I did run with quite a few different paces to see how well the two watches matched each other.

Oh almost forgot; F3 was with HRM run belt. The 735 was with OHR. For this run it was so so with accuray from OHR. There's no doubt that a HRM belt (for me) is way more accurate. But for a steady pace run I could imagine going just by OHR. Take a look at the charts and judge yourself.

So I'm gonna do some more testing in the coming days. Below are links to both runs:

F3: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1178101738
735: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1178105979

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

735 vs f3 vs 810 - Cycling

Tested the 735 with the f3 and 810. 735 was wrist mounted, f3 and 810 were mounted on my bars. All 3 were paired with my speed sensor and I let the 735 choose the wheel size automatically (I am not sure how this works on the first ride, if it chooses early and then distance is based on speed sensor or only after the ride), but size chosen was 2109, which is amazing as it is exactly what I had my f3 and 810 set for manually after testing this bike a long time ago.

Here is the GPS comparison - http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#ls5I3JD0

Tracks all match pretty well, 735 tracks are arguably the worst of the three, but still very good considering it was on my wrist and distance and elevation profiles all look pretty good to me (note f3 and 810 are uncorrected and 735 is corrected).

HR - Max and average HRs were the same with chest strap and 735 (f3 and 810 used chest strap and 735 was OHR). I did note delay in reaching HR of about 2s or so on 735, and on big climbs it dod not seem the 735 was correct (seeming up to 15 BPM behind), but even Time in Zones is relatively close.

735 - https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1177695644
f3 - https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1178526525
810 - https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1178532405

I plotted HR from the HRM-Run connected to my f3 vs. the 735XT OHR and the results are not too bad:

The 735 does lag, but overall not a terrible result.

EDIT: Loaded better resolution graph for HR data

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

Elevation Comparison

Thought I would throw in a comparison of the uncorrected GPS elevation from the 735XT compared to the f3 barometric altimeter uncorrected:

Pretty good comparison overall with a little bit of divergence at the end of the ride, but overall both gave the same Gain and Loss of about 1650 ft. The weather was changing during the ride a bit with a storm moving into the area so might have affected the f3 adversely, but not sure actually.

EDIT - Changed to Uncorrected GPS Elevation Data from 735XT as was pointed out to me that data export from GC does not include the corrections.

0 Crispin_Ellisdon over 9 years ago

@CHIMPWARE, that looks like the actual elevation plot from the FR735XT, rather than the corrected elevation plot (have a look at the elevation graph in Garmin Connect; it starts and finishes at exactly 44 metres altitude, which the orange line in the graph in your post clearly does not start/finish at the same altitude). Garmin Connect does not actually change the data points when you select Corrected Elevation, all it does is maps your route over a digital map to re-calculate the elevation graph in GC and the elevation gain/loss calcs (but only in GC). So if you export the .fit, .tcx or .gpx files from GC they will still have the uncorrected elevation data originally recorded by the watch (which will be from GPS in the FR735XT's case). Crossing threads on different forums, this is the reason I will hold out for a new watch with barometric altitude before I upgrade from my F3 (however tempting the 735's initial GPS horizontal track accuracy and GPS instant pace is shaping up to be).

Edit: Screen shot below is what the corrected elevation plot in GC from the 735 Activity actually looks like (The F3 and 810 elevation plots would look identical if you applied GC Corrected Elevation to those too).
" />">