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 Former Member over 9 years ago

On a less serious note does amuse me when people say the 735 looks "cheaper" than the Fenix 3. Well it is cheaper (to buy).

Not much cheaper. I bought the F3 for £340 shortly after it came out and I paid £320 for the 735 now.

I always compare with say training shoes - some people prefer a heavier, more cushioned shoe for general training. Others like to wear something as light as possible - generally you go faster as a result. I'm in the latter camp.

I wear lighter shoes for races and speed training and heavier shoes for most of my other runs. Maybe I should try the same approach with my watch ;)

0 Teriemer over 9 years ago

... when people say the 735 looks "cheaper" than the Fenix 3. Well it is cheaper (to buy)...

I love it ;-)

Can't argue about facts, can you :cool:

0 Teriemer over 9 years ago

GLONASS is interesting isn't it. I've yet to see any compelling studies that it actually makes much difference. I guess the only way to tell is to wear 2 identical devices (although 2 of 230/235/630/735 would probably do) on lots of runs (especially under trees and stuff) either on same wrist (or keep swapping them over) and see how things stack up.

Sometimes I look through my menus and note I had or had not switched to GLONASS (noting that GPS only is the default) and TBH I can't recall a time in recent memory when the 2 devices I take out on most of my runs were significantly different in GPS tracking and distance accrual and, of late, that is mostly a 735 and a 630.

I agree and I remember when 920XT came out, I did test it a few times. On distance accrual, there never was any noticeable difference (same route different day). On instant pace, the 920 was slightly more accurate while in the woods. Out in the open there was no difference. Frankly said hardly any argument (for me) to use the system. And nowadays when pace can come from FP, I never use glonass.

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

Interesting because I tested the fenix 3 (albeit a long time ago) and there was a difference in distance accrual using GLONASS and not using GLONASS, but seemed to give a track offset in my test conditions. I am going to turn it off on the 735 and test against my 810 today on a short ride I am planning.

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

735XT (No GLONASS) vs 810

Good match on both distance and elevations for 735XT vs. 810 on this ride

http://www.mygpsfiles.com/app/#ouoP4Hb9

735 track is OK, not excellent, but definitely pretty good for being wrist worn.

0 Teriemer over 9 years ago

So I did another run today with latest FW (3.20). Sadly once again the GPS went crazy with some wild and odd jumps. It's quite funny, cause I don't see it when it happens. Nor pace or anything jumps?! The only way for me to detect this is when I pass a known 1k mark and the watch either beeps way off mark.

It seems it's a general issue for me, since I'm the only reporting it. The run was with pace from FP, so looking at the pace chart seems ok. But check out the pace chart from Strava - that one is based purely on GPS. Something is totally wrong - that's clear. I did not (I wish I could) run km 7 with a laptime at 2:18... ;-)

I'm gonna write the Devs once again. I'm sure it's just a minor quirk to be fixed soon in a firmware update...

GC file says 18,1 km: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1183633334 (note the one at 40:26 was done be me. All the remaining was quirks by the watch).

Strava says 18,5 km: https://www.strava.com/activities/587543994

0 timgrose over 9 years ago

Have reported this to Garmin as these jumps seem somewhat unusual and not what others are seeing.

0 Teriemer over 9 years ago

Have reported this to Garmin as these jumps seem somewhat unusual and not what others are seeing.

Thanks a lot Tim :D

That saves me for sending another report (like I did with FW 3.10).

0 chimpware over 9 years ago

I would RMA the watch and get a new one.

0 kalamarios over 9 years ago

Have reported this to Garmin as these jumps seem somewhat unusual and not what others are seeing.

I saw some similar jumps with my 235, two runs before I received my 735 and switched over. So far my 235 has been really solid (in terms of GPS tracking) so I am taking these as temporary flukes.

That said, so far the tracks the 735 is producing are not as "tight" as the ones from 235 or 630. Nothing to really worry about as distances are spot on but there is "something" not 100% right in my opinion. Of course as with anything GPS, I can't really quantify it because it might just be a bad day.