NoWhammies

Not cycling related but tech related. Garmin just released two new watches with AMOLED displays. The Forerunner 965 and 265. Anyone have any experience with AMOLED watches? Does the display justify purchasing a new watch? I am taring to suffer to upgrade-itis.

mschwett 

i’m not sure if you’re referring to AMOLED vs others types of OLED, but if we’re talking OLED vs backlit/traditional LCD… yes. 100%. the power savings of a white on black OLED are very significant (black OLED pixels don’t use much energy, whereas a backlight is always on), the contrast is better between true black and bright white, etc.

compare the display of an apple watch or new iPhone to an old garmin. it’s like night and day - and one of the reasons i don’t use bike computers.

Polaris OBark

My Garmin Venu 2 I think has this (I just looked it up) and if so, it is extremely high quality and easy to read.

Iride01 

It depends on what other screen type you are comparing too. In general AMOLED is a disadvantage for direct sunlight. Garmin has always used other types of screens that are highly visible in direct sunlight.

So without me looking at what Garmin is touting for these products it might just be these allow them to sell the device at a lower cost. Though possibly they've got some special version that negates the general con's of AMOLED.

thin_concrete

I love my Epix Gen2. I have no problems with direct sunlight.

With the watch in sleep mode and motion activated, I’m getting 14-15 days on a charge.

NoWhammies

Thanks for the feedback. I am comparing the display of the new Forerunner 265 to the Forerunner 745. Basically I am trying to justify the purchase of a new watch to myself

znomit

Amoled will change your life. You'll wonder how you ever lived without it. You will sleep better and your teeth will be whiter.
Only real downside is you won't want to hang with your non amoled friends anymore. But you'll get over it.

thin_concrete

I actually upgraded from the 745. There are a handful of new features, but the display is what’s really different.

My 745 was still going strong, but my wife’s Fenix 3 was starting to do some erratic things. She doesn’t wear a watch unless she’s running whereas I wouldn’t be caught dead without one, and I was already looking at the Epix2 so I ended up with the new watch.

NoWhammies

thin_concrete Funny you should say that about the 745. That is what I would be upgrading from. My 745 is still going strong too. I am however frustrated that I cannot upgrade to the latest firmware b/c of the elevation issue. Which is a shame too b/c I really like the 745. Good size for my wrist. Does everything I need a sports watch to do. I do like the newer features though such as advanced sleep metrics, HRV, etc. that are offered on the 265. For the time being my decision is made for me. The 265 in black is currently not available.

a1penguin

I bought the Venu when it first came out in 2019 and it has amoled screen. After three years, it was suffering from some screen burnin, which I hear has been mitigated in the newer version watches with amoled. But the screen was not always on. I upgraded to Fenix 7 right before xmas. I like the always on screen a LOT better. I don't even notice the lower resolution. I love that the battery lasts waaaay longer. I generally charge once a week and it's usually about half charged.

Where it will really matter is with the maps. If you don't use maps, lower resolution is fine.
If you use maps, you should go to REI and try both types of watches.

PS. I never thought I would spring $600 for a watch, but I get a lot of value out of the health statistics.

njkayaker

It’s not a weird conspiracy.

Garmin provides the AMOLED display because many people prefer it.

The AMOLED display on the Garmin Expix is much nicer than the much-dimmer display on the Fenix 7. These are the same devices other than the screens .

The Fenix, though, has better battery life. The idea is that you won’t need to use the Fenix backlight very often.

Garmin has some “burn in” (guessing that’s the “con” you are alluding to) protection but even that isn’t the problem it once was.

Some people will prefer the better screen over battery like and some people will prefer the opposite.

njkayaker

The transreflective screens used on the Garmins don’t need a backlight in sunlight. They use much less power than AMOLED.

But the AMOLED screens are nicer.

Garmin is giving you the option to make the trade off.

Iride01 

I didn't suggest it was a conspiracy. So don't think I meant it like that.

Your take on the difference between the AMOLED and Garmin's more typical trans-reflective screen does seem the more reasonable viewpoint. I'm not even sure the AMOLED was a cost saving move. Probably just sideways at best for manufacturing costs and maybe the AMOLED is more cost.

Iride01 

Everything has pro's and con's so that was also just a general statement.

For me my phone has a Super AMOLED screen whatever that is. I find it very difficult to see in the bright outdoor sunlight and typically have to find a shadow to stand in to see anything on my phone. The Garmin devices of various sorts that I use outdoors with the other types of screens are much more visible. But possibly not as pretty. But I'm not wanting to watch movie on my Garmin while I'm riding my bike.

mschwett 

ahh i thought the comparison was to an LED backlit LCD. my bad!

nice that they offer two screen types of a basically similar/same device.

njkayaker

"Conspiracy" was an exaggeration. What you said is suggesting Garmin is in some-way "screwing customers" with you admitting you didn't really look at things very closely. A little bit of effort on your part would have indicated that many people like the better display. What you said wasn't fair to Garmin and wasn't based on anything.

You should have talked about the pros and cons. That would have been useful.

This a common problem with phone screens. They aren't outputting enough light to compete with sunlight. One would have to take care that the AMOLED watch would work for you. It's nice that Garmin provides an option for some devices.

One issue is that people don't understand the benefits of the transreflective screens and they look "worse" (people complain about them being dull all the time).

The better screens are better for things other than "watching movies while riding your bike" (another snide comment) and the transreflective screens have different benefits. Most people with watches are not using them "on their bike". For them, the AMOLED screen might not be as much of a problem for them to use.

njkayaker

The transreflective screens Garmin uses are a bit dull. The screen on the Hammerhead Karoo seems better.

I don't mind the transreflective screen. I know the reason for it and know how it works. They do have a backlight but you aren't supposed to need it in sunlight.

The transreflective screens have a "marketing problem" because they look dull and people compare them to the bright screens on their phones.

Yes, it's nice that Garmin is providing a choice.

==================================

Many people set up their Garmin cycle computers so that they are tilted up (so that 90' to the direction people look at it).

With transrefective screens, it's better to set it up so the face of the computer is flat/horizontal. That way, the screen gets more sunlight. It's not perfect but it's much better than the fairly-common tilted orientation.

==================================

It looks like the AMOLED screen on the Epix works well in bright sunlight.
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/01/...th-review.html

Iride01 

Absolutely not what I intoned. You just read it that way.
How is selling stuff for a lower cost screwing the customer? At the time I thought the AMOLED displays might be a less expensive option and sold for lower price.

Well no one else really did either. So why single me out? As I said initially I really had no idea about the units Garmin was selling with that type of display. As well Garmin watches aren't my thing. [/quote]


There you go. I think you made the best pro&con for the two different types of display. The devices I use for fitness need to be readable in bright sun. AMOLED are difficult if not impossible to read in bright sunlight. So I think as you stated in your other post, it just comes down to some possibly wanting a better look for times when they are indoors.

Snide comment? I thought it was cute! But we don't have to agree.

njkayaker

AMOLED screens are provided on more expensive phones and standard backlit LED screens are provided on cheaper phones. So, what you "thought" doesn't appear to be correct. The problem is that you suggested the only reason was for "cost cutting'. The real reason is that people like the screens better.

Not true. I pointed out the differences.

You had "no idea" and speculated about a reason anyway. You were the only person who did that.

Given that the AMOLED screens we are talking about are only on watches, why are you talking about them?

Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/01/...th-review.html

It's dismissive of people who have good reasons to choose AMOLED screens, which you don't know about.

Given that you said "I really had no idea about the units Garmin was selling" and "Garmin watches aren't my thing", agreeing with what you said would be dumb.

Iride01 

njkayaker In your typical fashion you've taken this reply, which is totally correct and innocent of anything....

And turned it into this because you by your own admission exaggerated something that you misunderstood.

You confuse my reasons for not wanting something as something I hold others to. That's wrong on your part. And you obviously don't like my humorous way of giving my reason yet you were okay with you comment that I was accusing Garmin of a conspiracy.

If you are going to come participate in text conversations with others, you shouldn't impart such a twisted take on what you think the other persons views are.

njkayaker

No, what you said here was wrong about the Garmin devices.


The "conspiracy" comment was knock of your silly unfounded "explanation". Your comment was dismissive of the valid reasons people might prefer AMOLED.

You really shouldn't participate in topics you don't know much or even care about.

Iride01 

My comment was not dismissive. I said that I was supposing the AMOLED screen might be a cost saving measure. And as I didn't know if the other screens Garmin uses that can be seen better in direct sunlight cost more it's a reasonable surmise.

You took it that I was saying that Garmin was sticking it to the customer by selling them a device with cheaper components and not passing that savings on to the purchaser. And that is absolutely not true. When I referred to cost, I was talking about the cost to the consumer.

njkayaker

Repeating what I said earlier: AMOLED screens are provided on more-expensive phones and LCD screens are provided on cheaper phones. Yours is not a "reasonable surmise" at all since it's based on something you "didn't know" anything about.

And this is still wrong.

The Epix 2 (with the AMOLED screen) is $200 more than the Fenix 7.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/735611

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/760778#specs

Iride01 

Okay, I guess we are at an impasse.

All I know is that you have once again called me wrong about something you misunderstood how I meant it to be used. And that isn't even significant to the OP. So all we've done is fill up this thread with what to me is your misunderstandings and my attempts clarify it to you.

The pertinent thing in the post you took exception to is that AMOLED screens are not as visible in bright sunlight as other Garmin screens. Yet you focused on something that even I at the time said was a "might be". And even stated that I had not looked at the Garmin products. So essentially that should tell you that I wasn't aware of the price difference.

Further discussion of this between us will be pointless so I'll let you have the last comment if you need that for your self worth and wish to make another rebuttal.

NoWhammies

And...to draw this thread to a close. I ended up purchasing the 265. I justified the purchase by saying the amoled display will help my old man eyes. So far no complaints. The amoled display is nice an bright and definitely an improvement over the display on the 745. Of course had the 265 never come out I would still be quite happy with the 745; minus the elevation issue that still has not been fixed.