I am hating myself right now, changed from 820 (because I hated the navigation and needed a bigger screen), to HammerHead, happy with it … 1040 on it’s way
1 Like
Sutro’s with prizm jade lenses
Dont know how it happened but mec in canada has the 1040’s. Still nothing on garmin canada website
that and the battery. I really was shocked at how poorly I got along with the Karoo OS as well.
the 1040 maps and routing are as good or better than the Karoo2 now, imho. auto-routing seems to be better where I live as well.
1 Like
Benchmark app for 1040 is out. Only one so far I found:
Anyone want to run it? I don’t see any numbers for the 1030 plus to compare to
1 Like
Well if you snoozed last week, even Garmin’s site is now showing 5-8 weeks for the Edge 1040 and Solar, but 1040 bundles still shipping.
1 Like
1030: 9-10
1030 Plus: 11-12
1040 Solar: 13-14
Interesting, but not the whole picture. The 1040 doing route caching when first downloading a route and doing things in the background (and a new UI/UX) give it a faster feel all round.
*Angle of the pic makes the 1040S look longer than it really is.
4 Likes
Those are in frames per second (FPS).
Benchmark data from the author:
Vivoactive 4: 4-5 FPS
Forerunner 245: 6 FPS
Fenix 6X Pro: 6 FPS
Edge 820: 4 FPS
And source code if you are interested: GitHub - tomasslavicek/garmin3D: Garmin 3D benchmark source code
Interesting how the 1030 compares with the 1030 plus in that benchmark. Didn’t you use a different benchmark for the 1030 plus review where the 530/830 was about twice as fast as the 1030? New Garmin EDGE Cycling GPS Units: Edge 1030 Plus // Edge 130 Plus - YouTube
So if this benchmark only shows a small increase between those two maybe it’s not valid for the 1040 to show how much an upgrade there is in the cpu?
If we work of that assumption, sorry for making the bad suggestion @GPLama but also this benchmark may be bottlenecked in how it draws to the screen. This might be why new graphics calls were added:
In that they could have left the screen drawing functions the same as previous chips sets used in terms of perf while increasing the perf of the chipset in other ways.
Also going by the code:
It renders the frame and then calls the timer callback to make a call in 50ms which means two things:
- Max fps is 20 if drawing took 0 time
- there is always a delay of 50ms between frame draws which means as drawing time takes less percent of total time the timer callback has a greater influence. So if the timer isn’t accurate… (System timers sometimes trade accuracy for better battery life)
Assuming exact timer, if rendering took 0ms it would be 20fps. 15ms is ~15.4fps, 30ms is ~12.5 fps, 50ms is 10fps, 60ms is 9.1 fps so as you can see this benchmark doesn’t scale. Instead of using a timer to render each frame it should try to do a short loop to render multiple frames (20?) and use the timer set to repeat to start the loop every 50ms. (It won’t actually call the callback if it’s currently executing) This keeps the render loop from timing out from running too long. So the timer switches to making sure the infinite loop is still running to keep the time spent in a delay waiting on the timer not doing any calculations to a minimum.
And probably should have looked into this before suggesting this benchmark…
Guess we’ll have to wait for a less graphical benchmark to get updated to run. Or I’ll have to check if my visual code install still works and make my own
What’s more interesting is the actual on-bike user experience. If a re-route takes too long and you miss a turn, is it processing speed or is it shitty code? Or does more processing speed mean shitty re-route code runs faster… 
I haven’t figured out how to get to the ‘Factory test’ / debug mode on the 1040 units. Maybe that’ll cough up more details on the hardware.
4 Likes
Maybe to the end user, not the nerd trying to figure out what is happening behind the scenes even if not actually important…
Ok, my other reasoning is wanting it to be possible to have more complex connect iq apps so want the 1040 to allow that over being a 1030 from the perspective of an app. (Updated my previous reply so maybe the perf is showing to be a good amount better)
A matte screen protector totally solved this issue for me! I really recommend trying that. Mine is made by Panzerglass.
1 Like
But does it really tell us that much, it gets about a 10% speed increase over the 1030plus because the granularity of the test is so low, was that 10% because the CPU was 10% faster, the code all fitted in CPU cache, Garmin have changed how IQ apps work on the 1040 and they get a higher priority when running full screen, the screen drawing hardware has been improved, or the refresh rate on the LCD has been changed
It does make it clear that the performance upgrade is mainly down to software redesign, but we already knew that
That’s really the only part I care about. I couldn’t care less how they make it faster, just that they make it faster. These benchmarks really don’t mean anything to me. It’s the on-bike experience that’s important.
3 Likes
it is clear that the 1040 is faster then the 1030, but 530 and 830 are also faster the the 1030, because they got new Hardware.
So is the 1040 faster then a 830 or 530?
Actually that isn’t true. Using the data from gplama we can add the time taken to render a frame ((1000/fps)-50):
So a good amount faster
530,830,1030plus are about the same
While the speed might be faster the loading of courses is not from what I have seen online. I don’t have my solar in hand yet but the 530 is still very slow loading a course I do all the time. I only load it so my parents can see where I am at on the course.
ok, but
How much does using LiveTrack drain the battery of your Garmin and phone? Thinking about using it for a ~10-12h race to coordinate with support crew, but obviously don’t want to run out of battery 
I use InReach Mini for that. the connection fees aren’t cheap, but it will track you EVERYWHERE.