+AtlantisDesign Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 I'm new to geocaching and I use a Droid X smartphone right now. I used a Triton 2000 but for $349.99 I quickly returned it because it couldn't hook onto satellites under tree canopy. I live in Washington state where we have some dense canopies of evergreens here. But my question is: I need to know which one of these is going to get me spot on to the GZ each time. I have heard awesome reviews about the 60CSx chipset being much more advanved then other units so I am eager to try that one. But is newer technology better in this case? Does anyone currently use a 60CSx right now and have tested the 62s side by side to see which one has a stronger chipset? Also which one is more accurate and faster at receiving satellite info? Which one is more stable? Any help? Thanks. Quote Link to comment
+splashy Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) A 60 model, how beautiful designed it might be, it's 2 generations behind en slow for modern maps. Also, it's a lot hearsay and if you don't have the 60 with the right chipset, it's as good or bad as any other older model gps. Edited June 26, 2011 by splashy Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 If you don't want maps. If you don't want paperless caching. Map60CSX everytime. (I have one.) If you want maps. If you want paperless caching. If you want field notes. I use an Oregon 300. (I have one.) Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 But my question is: I need to know which one of these is going to get me spot on to the GZ each time. None of them. Quote Link to comment
+luvvinbird Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 But my question is: I need to know which one of these is going to get me spot on to the GZ each time. None of them. Excellent answer! One of the first things grasshoppers will learn. Quote Link to comment
+BAMBOOZLE Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) From what I've experienced and read I think the 60CSx will get you closer to GZ smoothly without " freezes" or " lockups" better than the newer units. As has been said, NONE will ALWAYS take you to exact GZ. However I think you're REALLY going to want to be paperless ...... to that end we use an Oregon 450 ( actually my wife and I often bring 3 GPS units on the trail.) Edited June 26, 2011 by BAMBOOZLE Quote Link to comment
+AtlantisDesign Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) With my Droid X I was able to get about 17 meters away from GZ, under a tree canopy though it around 20-30 meters. But using the Trition last week, I was about to get 12-16 meters away. But my friend had a 60CSx and he was almost standing on the GZ each time we went out. So it is probably a good assumption that I will end up getting more then one unit. So I will start with the 60 CSx for now and probably buy the 62stc around Christmas. Thanks for the help. I'm out to go geocaching on this 70 degree summer day in Washington. Edited June 26, 2011 by AtlantisDesign Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 With my Droid X I was able to get about 17 meters away from GZ, under a tree canopy though it around 20-30 meters. But using the Trition last week, I was about to get 12-16 meters away. But my friend had a 60CSx and he was almost standing on the GZ each time we went out. You assume that the hider had pinpoint accuracy with their coordinates. It could be that his was off 10 meters in one direction, and you were off 10 meters in the opposite direction. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 With my Droid X I was able to get about 17 meters away from GZ, under a tree canopy though it around 20-30 meters. But using the Trition last week, I was about to get 12-16 meters away. But my friend had a 60CSx and he was almost standing on the GZ each time we went out. So it is probably a good assumption that I will end up getting more then one unit. So I will start with the 60 CSx for now and probably buy the 62stc around Christmas. Thanks for the help. I'm out to go geocaching on this 70 degree summer day in Washington. Not to muddy the waters, but the 60CSX has two chipsets. The earlier units used the SiRF III and those are the units that garnered the 60CSX's outstanding reputation. The newer 60CSXs have a different chipset (Mediatek I think) Quote Link to comment
+BAMBOOZLE Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 With my Droid X I was able to get about 17 meters away from GZ, under a tree canopy though it around 20-30 meters. But using the Trition last week, I was about to get 12-16 meters away. But my friend had a 60CSx and he was almost standing on the GZ each time we went out. So it is probably a good assumption that I will end up getting more then one unit. So I will start with the 60 CSx for now and probably buy the 62stc around Christmas. Thanks for the help. I'm out to go geocaching on this 70 degree summer day in Washington. Not to muddy the waters, but the 60CSX has two chipsets. The earlier units used the SiRF III and those are the units that garnered the 60CSX's outstanding reputation. The newer 60CSXs have a different chipset (Mediatek I think) Anybody have an idea when they stopped using the Sirf III in the CSx ? Can you tell which one is in your unit ? Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Anybody have an idea when they stopped using the Sirf III in the CSx ? Can you tell which one is in your unit ? Look at the reported firmware level. If it includes an 'm' suffix, it's using a MediaTek chip. FWIW, I found that to be a great chip in my eTrex Summit. As for when - it all depended upon existing retail and distributor stock and distributor stock rotation, but they started showing up around the middle of 2008. Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 A 60 model, how beautiful designed it might be, it's 2 generations behind en slow for modern maps. Explain yourself with this ridiculous claim about it being "slow for modern maps". I run the latest City Navigator 2012.10 update and many other "modern" TOPO maps. Sure, it may take a second or two to update after zooming in or out a bunch of scales, but it isn't "slow". And, it certainly isn't slow when walking up to a cache. Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Hmmm... dhn and AndyP were right. Interesting forum manners, well noted at gpsreview.net. It's possible that the post you quote takes into consideration things to which we've grown accustomed on later units ... trail overlays on top of satellite images, etc. While those aren't really even options for the 60, I can't imagine trying to run something so graphics heavy on the older map or eTrex units (any of them), either. That kind of imagery requires a bit more horsepower. Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 While those aren't really even options for the 60 END OF DISCUSSION because the dubious mental gymnastics are not relevant. What's next? You two going to start bashing on a Honda Civic because it can't carry a full sheet of plywood...because it wasn't designed for said task? Quote Link to comment
+luvvinbird Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 While those aren't really even options for the 60 END OF DISCUSSION because the dubious mental gymnastics are not relevant. What's next? You two going to start bashing on a Honda Civic because it can't carry a full sheet of plywood...because it wasn't designed for said task? OMG. Girls, girls. Please..... Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 OMG. Girls, girls. Please..... Yet you call us "girls"? Quote Link to comment
+BAMBOOZLE Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Anybody have an idea when they stopped using the Sirf III in the CSx ? Can you tell which one is in your unit ? Look at the reported firmware level. If it includes an 'm' suffix, it's using a MediaTek chip. FWIW, I found that to be a great chip in my eTrex Summit. As for when - it all depended upon existing retail and distributor stock and distributor stock rotation, but they started showing up around the middle of 2008. Mine says : Software Ver. 4.00 GPS SW Ver. 3.00s Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Mine says : Software Ver. 4.00 GPS SW Ver. 3.00s Mine says the same, as well. You're good to go... "s" = SIRF Quote Link to comment
+AtlantisDesign Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 This helps me immensily. Now I know what to look for. Thank you sviking and Bamboozle. I will be looking to purchase a 60CSx soon and I like the rave reviews that the 60CSx has had. But I will be sure to look for the Sirf III "s" symbol. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) But I will be sure to look for the Sirf III "s" symbol. Don't bother. The chip has been under a legal cloud for several years now, developing using this chipset is risky for manufacturers. If you do happen to find a 60 with the SiRF chip, it probably is a couple years old. Edited June 28, 2011 by jholly Quote Link to comment
+AtlantisDesign Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) But I will be sure to look for the Sirf III "s" symbol. Don't bother. The chip has been under a legal cloud for several years now, developing using this chipset is risky for manufacturers. If you do happen to find a 60 with the SiRF chip, it probably is a couple years old. The whole unit is a couple years old so what does it matter if the chipset is old, so is the unit. Edited June 28, 2011 by AtlantisDesign Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 But I will be sure to look for the Sirf III "s" symbol. Don't bother. The chip has been under a legal cloud for several years now, developing using this chipset is risky for manufacturers. If you do happen to find a 60 with the SiRF chip, it probably is a couple years old. The whole unit is a couple years old so what does it matter if the chipset is old, so is the unit. Let me translate that ... the comment was not made because of the "age" of the chipset. Importing the SiRF chipset has been blocked for the past several years because of copyright issues. That is the reason Garmin switched to the Mediatek chip. It was *legal* reasons, not *technical* issues. Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 OMG. Girls, girls. Please..... Yet you call us "girls"? From what I understand from the other moderators I mentioned, the occasional cat fight is apparently to be expected, so ... Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) Let me translate that ... the comment was not made because of the "age" of the chipset. Importing the SiRF chipset has been blocked for the past several years because of copyright issues. That is the reason Garmin switched to the Mediatek chip. It was *legal* reasons, not *technical* issues. And let me translate that further : you may have much trouble finding a SiRFstar III chipset 60csx brand new in the store. (I always mess up the capitalization of that name...) Any idea if the patent infringement suit has been settled? I can't seem to find anything about it online. Edited June 28, 2011 by Chrysalides Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Mine says : Software Ver. 4.00 GPS SW Ver. 3.00s Mine says the same, as well. You're good to go... "s" = SIRF He'd be good to go with "m" = MediaTek. It's a good chip, and between their engineers and Garmin's, they got it right in the firmware. I'd be just as happy with 'm' as 's'. You can set my old eTrex Summit HC in the front yard, give it about a minute to settle, fire off a track, and watch it move no more than 0.001 in any direction for an hour. Pretty amazing, and honestly better than any of the units I've ever used in time-to-settle and stability. What has been truly goofy at release is the firmware for the units using the STMicro (Cartesio) components. The 60 hasn't ever seen one of those AFAIK. Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 This helps me immensily. Now I know what to look for. I wouldn't go to any pains to determine which you're getting. It'll either be an old SiRF unit (good) or a newer MediaTek unit (good). You'll find both perform very well. Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 From what I understand from the other moderators I mentioned, the occasional cat fight is apparently to be expected, so ... Please regale me with your fictitious tales involving "other mods" on "another forum"... PM me, if you must... Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 From what I understand from the other moderators I mentioned, the occasional cat fight is apparently to be expected, so ... Please regale me with your fictitious tales involving "other mods" on "another forum"... PM me, if you must... "Fictitious". Right they were. I've already pointed you directly at one other GPS related web site and two moderators. How personal should this really become? Quote Link to comment
+luvvinbird Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Mine says : Software Ver. 4.00 GPS SW Ver. 3.00s Mine says the same, as well. You're good to go... "s" = SIRF Mine says Software Ver. 4.20 GPS SW Ver. 2.40M I couldn't be happier with the accuracy. As for maps, I'm using only City Navigator NT (North America) which loads and displays very well. Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 From what I understand from the other moderators I mentioned, the occasional cat fight is apparently to be expected, so ... Please regale me with your fictitious tales involving "other mods" on "another forum"... PM me, if you must... "Fictitious". Right they were. I've already pointed you directly at one other GPS related web site and two moderators. How personal should this really become? I don't care. Tell me what they said because they've never said anything to me "over there". Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I don't care. Tell me what they said because they've never said anything to me "over there". You've already said they were fictitious individuals. What would be the point? Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Mine says Software Ver. 4.20 GPS SW Ver. 2.40M I couldn't be happier with the accuracy. That doesn't surprise me at all. When it first got out that Garmin had switched chips, and because the 60CSx had been such a great performer, there was a lot of concern about whether the new units would perform as well as the older ones. It certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if they somehow managed to appear in one of the newer models in place of the STMicro. I don't know if it's the chip or the firmware behind it, but it's not as quick to settle as either of the two previous chips we've talked about. Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) I don't care. Tell me what they said because they've never said anything to me "over there". You've already said they were fictitious individuals. What would be the point? I said no such thing regarding actual individuals. Work on your reading comprehension. Edited June 28, 2011 by sviking Quote Link to comment
+michaelnel Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Would you two please get a room? Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Would you two please get a room? Hey, I requested he take it to PM, but chose to not follow that course of action. Bust his balls... Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Would you two please get a room? Hey, I requested he take it to PM, but chose to not follow that course of action. Bust his balls... Probably should have, but it was easier to let you make those other folks' point than try to explain it myself. Meanwhile, do you believe someone with 'm' level code and a MediaTek chip is ALSO "good to go"? It seemed that as the thread continued, there was concern being aimed at that particular chipset. Going ALL the way back to the original post, I will say that I'm not as impressed with the STMicro chip on either of the two units that I own that use it as I previously have been with either the SiRF III or MediaTek equipped units. Heaven knows it took forever for ST + Garmin to sort out issues like WAAS on these units. There have been a lot of discussions about the algorithm being used for creating tracks on the STMicro equipped models as well, and the accuracy of distances, but that may be less an issue of drift compensation than just the Garmin firmware itself -- just happened to come with 'the package' when the chips changed and the firmware was rewritten for the new models all at once. It's not always easy to discern which firmware is at the root of some problems. We've had a lot of threads here over time that really made me wish that units like the Oregon still had one of the older chips - and with SiRF being in limbo for a while, I'd have been perfectly happy if they'd have stuck with MediaTek. Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Probably should have, but it was easier to let you make those other folks' point than try to explain it myself. I.E. You're FOS. Thanks for proving that point via your reluctance to answer my question. Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Any chance of a reply to the on-topic portion of that post? Earlier, you said Mine says the same, as well. You're good to go... "s" = SIRF Given that there are only two alternatives in a 60CSx, suggesting that someone is "good to go" because they've got the "s"iRF III chip would seem to imply that they might not be "good to go" if they discover a "m"ediaTek chip. Before we leave 60CSx owners with such an impression, I thought you should clarify your position on the matter. Quote Link to comment
sviking Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 You know as well as I that many people have posted (right or wrong) about finding the sIRF chip more desirable for whatever their reasons. So, in their minds, they're "good to go" if they got that configuration because they wanted it. Surely even you can see that. Honestly, I don't believe I've ever even read a post where a discrete someone actually desired an "m" chip over an "s" one... But, I'm also not saying that condition doesn't exist, either... Quote Link to comment
Grasscatcher Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Very little substantive information and lousy entertainment. A dog is chasing a bus.....round and round.... Yep- the 60 has two possible chipsets. Nope- no one can factually prove that one is better than the other. Yep- if you have a 60 then you have one of the two varieties of chipsets Which ever chipset you have is the one you have...duh... you can't change it and Garmin won't. If you didn't know there were two possibilities, then you couldn't tell by any performance std. etc,etc,etc,etc Moral of this story... The dog caught the bus....now what does he do with it?......NOTHING ! Quote Link to comment
+Chrysalides Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Yep- the 60 has two possible chipsets.Nope- no one can factually prove that one is better than the other. Yep- if you have a 60 then you have one of the two varieties of chipsets Which ever chipset you have is the one you have. A very good summary, with one exception : If you are curious, you can find out which chipset your unit has by looking at the suffix of the firmware version. So, back to the original question. Does the 60csx have a more advanced / reliable chipset than the 62s? Answer is : As far as we can tell, no. Earlier versions of the 60csx does have a different chipset. However, the firmware of the 60csx is much more mature than the 62s. Because Garmin has had much more time to work on the bugs. And it is also less complicated (no paperless, for starters). Quote Link to comment
Grasscatcher Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Yep- the 60 has two possible chipsets.Nope- no one can factually prove that one is better than the other. Yep- if you have a 60 then you have one of the two varieties of chipsets Which ever chipset you have is the one you have. A very good summary, with one exception : If you are curious, you can find out which chipset your unit has by looking at the suffix of the firmware version. So, back to the original question. Does the 60csx have a more advanced / reliable chipset than the 62s? Answer is : As far as we can tell, no. Earlier versions of the 60csx does have a different chipset. However, the firmware of the 60csx is much more mature than the 62s. Because Garmin has had much more time to work on the bugs. And it is also less complicated (no paperless, for starters). No, NO exceptions...I only addressed the P Contest about the different chipsets available on the 60 series. Now,considering the fact that overall GPS performance is not "just" about chipsets, your point about firmware gets to what the OP really needs to know. The firmware has to consider the different chipsets, different antenna types and the working relationship between both and ALL the other variables to reach the end result performance. I have a 76CSx (same innards and QH antenna as a 60CSx), an Oregon 550, and a 78S (same chipset as 62 but different antenna type (non QH)). At times, I have carried all three simultaneously on single track hiking trails in canyons and under canopy. With all three set with identical settings, I have found the 78S to actually be the most stable overall for logging trails. I also use UTM coordinates and ALL the above will REGULARLY read within 2-3 meters when standing over a Benchmark of KNOWN coordinates. Not a scientific test but an accurate ACTUAL one. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.