Garmin Forerunner 165 First Run: Early tests with Garmin's cheapest AMOLED running watch

[@K.thai18]

Going from an Apple Watch Series 7 to a 165 is a complete game changer for my running. The upgrade is tremendous

[@gashosimon2678]

what do you mean for example? thx

[@K.thai18]

@@gashosimon2678 all Apple Watches are trash with running metrics and poor battery life. Garmin 165 has way more running metrics and way better battery life

[@iim_human]

@@gashosimon2678 I can see the data below right on the watch without the need of 3rd party apps. A lot of info is real time. Battery life is much better, AOD off gives you roughly 5-8 days depending on how frequently you work out. Could be longer. AOD on could get you roughly 4-5 days depending on how frequently you work out. Real time info - Steps - Heart rate - Stress levels (tells me whether it’s low, normal, or high - Body battery - energy levels Clear separation of my resting calories and active calories at easy glance right on the device without the need of a 3rd party app. Sleep tracking Workouts can be setup through Garmin connect vs having to create them on the tiny Apple Watch screen and automatically synced to the sync. Hydration can be logged right in Garmin connect, without the need of a 3rd party app. More buttons to help navigate through the watch. Analytics in detail, on the actual watch, provides insight on what the data means as well. (It tells me on device whether my stress number means low stress, moderate, or high stress, tells me how much sleep it recommends I get to recover more, etc. all on the device!) - More detailed info in Garmin connect app

[@lilypad344]

i think this is my watch!! I wanted the 265 but it’s almost double the price in Canada. I’ve never had a garmin, and as an Apple Watch user I want to stick with the amoled screen. I’m not a huge athlete so the 165 sounds like a perfect entry level for me.

[@justinegonzalez6461]

Thanks for the review! This just jumped to the top of my list. Been training on Fitbit for 4 years and I'm finally ready to jump ship for a more running focused watch. The AMOLED is actually the dealmaker for me. I've been spoiled with AMOLEDs for 4 years, so I wasn't about to downgrade screen quality 😅 I don't need even more features + the $400+ 265 is out of my budget.

[@DanielCho1997]

Or just pay $180 for a Coros Pace 3 with double the features than the 164

[@ivanlucacorda8441]

It's easy to just point at the Amoled screen when comparing to alternatives, but I think many have grown accustomed to onboard music integration and payment as well. It is these kind of "exclusive" Garmin features that not only bring extra value, but also are essential to many nowadays

[@robhunt8378]

Well done for spotting the lack of training status. Yours is the best review I've seen so far.

[@hornsteinhof7592]

They could have at least added load focus to see how many percent of your time you've spent at certain intensities

[@RenegadeRunner]

Great review & very timely. I'm in the market for a new Garmin & price/features wise I thought I'd decided on a FR255 (non-music version). The cost of the FR265 is over budget. I had no idea Garmin were about to launch the FR165 which is basically the same price. The main differences I can see between the 255 & the 165 are that the 255 has triathlon/multisport, better battery life and a slightly larger screen although the resolution on the 165 screen is better. I'm mainly a runner, but have completing a triathlon on my maybe one day bucket-list. As I'm a bit long-in-the-tooth my eyesight isn't what it was & I need glasses for reading. But don't need them for distance/driving or running. But I do struggle to see watch faces. So, in your opinion between the 255 and the 165 which offers the clearest face with the largest visible digits?

[@CSRunner7]

I’m in exactly the same spot! I wanted running dynamics data and 255 was much better price than 265 so thought I’d decided but this 165 with Amoled a real curveball! Seems to lack some Training status and readiness data and not multi band GPS but Amoled screen looks great!

[@dncmq]

Can you do comparison of fr 165 and coros pace 3?

[@CSRunner7]

I was about to buy 255 but this 165 looks great. With the UK weather thinking Amoled screen could prove useful but on downside shame it’s not got training readiness or status as never had that as still on a FR235. Are the training readiness/status stats actually of much use do you find or would the wellness data be just as useful? Think that’s my key decision mulling over. Battery sounds massively better than my 235!

[@AlexandruCr]

Can you help me please? Saving up money to buy this watch, but i really need to know, if it has "Power" statistics out of the box? I want to try this new function, but curious to know, if it works without HRM Pro Plus or other Power meters (such as stryd). I know stryd is better (but very expensive), i want to try this on garmin watch.

[@devilmaycryhdify]

Great video, thank you! I have a question about the map feature. When you use the map, but choose a different data screen. Do you still see the direction with a little arrow while you are on a different data screen or do you have to reopen the map screen to see the direction?

[@filipel1]

Just bought the 165 coming from a Coros Pace 2. How can I run a lactate threshold test with it? A also bought a HRM-Plus…

[@DingDong-fq2mo]

I'd go for the 255 over this. Battery life important to me. Also 255 over pace 3, because of the lack of continuous heart rate monitoring on the Coros. If Coros included continuous hrm, it'd be a no brainer.

[@xtrwq]

For the coros pace 3 there's a setting for real time hr. I thought I'd buy it as it was what I wanted but there's a known pace lag for coros watches for the continuous pace, it's recommended to use the lap pace or buy a pod 2, but I would have wanted they do the same as others and not have this delay, so Garmin seems like a better choice.

[@DingDong-fq2mo]

@@xtrwq Good to know. Thanks

[@brucelin5842]

Does this Watch look cheap n plastic comparing to the vivoactive 5?

[@markhill8590]

Pointless watch....get the 265 for not much more and also the coros pace 3 is cheaper.

[@bambaklats2891]

265 is €200 more, lol

[@markhill8590]

@@bambaklats2891 better around watch thought I've even seen the 965 for under 500 now and that is the best watch from Garmin at the moment

[@markroyds23]

And it's got the same heart rate sensors etc as the 265😂

[@jtrenchard1974]

I got my Forerunner 55 over a year ago for under £120 which was a good price. I like the Garmin environment. GPS and heart rate etc has been very good for an 'entry level' watch. I find the screen slightly small and definitely dim. I would really like to go up to the 265, but I just find it too expensive. I would not upgrade to the 165 at the suggested price of £250. The extra £130 is a lot for just a brighter display compared to the 55. I will wait a while and see what happens with prices - if they come down by a chunk I will go for the 265. Thanks for the review.

[@TG1417]

Agree with Garmin, still using Forerunner 10 for nearly 10 years! Can the 55 connect to wifi though unlike the 165, if so I might go for 55 since the bright screen is not really needed for me

[@jtrenchard1974]

No I don't believe so - mine has been fine with just the Bluetooth connection to my phone (or PC) though which in turn connects to Wi-Fi.@@TG1417

[@kierenkd]

Wow. Suprised how expemsive it is. Hopefully the Forerunner 65 will stay around the same price and keep the transreflective screen. Im not keen on amoled watch displays.

[@robhunt8378]

Seems unlikely to me that they're going to release a FR65. This 165 is the successor to the 55, I'm afraid.

[@4ndro]

165 is marketed as successor to 55, so no 65

[@kierenkd]

@@robhunt8378 I agree and it's a shame. The batteries will age faster so I suppose a win for Garmin. Instead of people upgrading at shorter intervals and less resale

[@robhunt8378]

@@kierenkd Absolutely. Higher price markups, faster battery wear and traces of burn-in in second hand units are all good for business, plus these displays are eye catching which lots seem to like, trade-offs be damned. I'm not surprised Garmin is pushing Amoled so hard.

[@andrewstorm8240]

They are getting so expensive

[@alexstuartphotography]

Thanks for the review! If I had a vivoactive 4 that was reaching its end of life, would you all see this as a reasonable upgrade/evolution for a frequent runner?

[@pehuyghe]

Yes, I think so. I would prefer this one over the new Vivoactive 5. I upgraded from the Vivoactive 4 to the Forerunner 965. The only reason I didnt go for the 265 was the lack of maps on that one. If you don t need maps, for a runner, this 165 will be more than fine.

[@NgapakTeritorry]

I used FR 45 for 4 years, and It still works properly, I just beginner runner, no need many activity, I want to chaneg my watch, from FR45 to Fr 165... but I think 165 is FR 55 + amoled, so I still used FR 45

[@uc3s]

Still waiting for this watch here in saudi arabia. Can't wait for the 165❤

[@shamdoroja306]

Does coros pace 3 has fall and crashed notifications?

[@NeillyVille]

No dual frequency, expensive, heavier than my Coros Pace 3 that I got for £180. Only advantage of it is the AMOLED

[@Pete0621]

Yep. Got my Pace 3 3 weeks ago and have been holding on to packaging just in case I want to return it if the "65" happened to drop on par with the Pace 3. Guess I'm keeping it. Does all I need.

[@kierenkd]

Id consider amoled a disadvantage. Not everyone wants this type of upgrade.

[@robhunt8378]

@@kierenkd It brings nothing of value in practice other than getting you good at wrist flicking. Except in models with maps perhaps, where higher res actually makes a difference.

[@sophiagray3191]

Doesn't need dual frequency, it's pretty darn accurate. Also connects to Spotify, biggest reason I went with the 165 over Pace 3

[@didtoknan8128]

How is the music quality ?

[@AlanCheese9000]

I have the 255 and spotify sounds like garbage compared to via my phone. My first Garmin

[@FromTheRightAngle]

Sorry if it’s mentioned in the video ( I may have missed it ) but did you purchase this or was it provided by Garmin?