In comparison, the Garmin Venu 3 (45mm) features a larger 1.4-inch AMOLED display with a resolution of 454×454, offering a superior visual experience. However, it is worth noting that the Venu 3 weighs 47g with the band, while the Vivoactive 5 weighs 36g, making the latter more comfortable to wear.
The Vivoactive 5 uses a lower quality 1.2-inch AMOLED with a 390x390 resolution. The Garmin Venu 3 (45mm) uses a 1.4-inch AMOLED with 454x454, so it’s clear which wins out in this head-to-head
OLED/AMOLED. The type of technology used in the display. is dustproof and water-resistant. Garmin Vivoactive 4. Huawei Watch GT Runner. The device is dustproof and water-resistant. Water-resistant devices can resist the penetration of water, such as powerful water jets, but not being submerged into water.
The Garmin Vivoactive 5 ($299) is ideal for those who are after a comprehensive range of health metrics and smartwatch features, packaged in a stylish design. The Amazfit Balance ($229) offers a
Vivoactive 3 vs Forerunner 265s - charts and graphs. So last week I posted some pictures of the 265s on my (small) wrist and compared it to my prior vivoactive 3. The v3 is more of a smartwatch than a fitness watch, so I wanted the 265 for the fitness features. Here they are, so far So last week I drove to a nearby park, forgot to start my
AVeLh.