Garmin 520 vs 510(any differences? )

saab2k

Hello. I have found a bargain deal on a Edge 510 used for 120 USD and i need your help. Also I found a brand new 520 edge with two years warrant for 240 USD.

What are the advantages of 520 over edge 510 since they share the same software... they both have same apps, live segments, live tracking...

The only difference i can find is:
510 touchscreen while 520 is not
520 is lighter and the battery holds a little more time


Please help.. Thanks

apreading

https://www.google.co.uk/?client=firefo ... 510+vs+520

saab2k

Haha..I searched with exactly the same keywords and checked all 3 pages from google before i opened this thread... Most of them are before the 510 received the same software as 520... usually I open a thread if I REALLY cannot find an answer

redvision

Go for the 520.
By far and away the best cycling gps available at the moment imo.

mikelskas

I have just moved to the 520 from the 510 and I def think it is worth the extra in your situation.
I always found the 510 touch screen a little fiddly on the move. The 520 has good solid buttons and doesn't leave you wondering if the screen is about to scroll.

I am not sure if its my imagination or the way the information is presented but the GPS seems a little more accurate too.

ben@31

Theres a comparison chart here, that lists all the different features...
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comp ... 93#results

I have a 520 and recommend it too... a colour screen thats much more clear than earlier Garmins, handy gear indication if you have Di2 and the Edge 520 is 99% identical to Edge 1000 for almost half the price ( I think the only difference is the map used ). I dont use the Starva seg feature on the 520 though, I never got to like this feature and its not as good as Garmin made out, doesnt work for every seg for a start only the ones you loaded onto it before a ride.
Mikelkas... If I remember correctly, the 520 uses both GPS and the Russian equivalent GLONASS, combined. Thats maybe why it gets a quicker position fix after you turn it on and better accuracy?

StillGoing

ben@31 wrote:

Theres a comparison chart here, that lists all the different features...
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comp ... 93#results

I have a 520 and recommend it too... a colour screen thats much more clear than earlier Garmins, handy gear indication if you have Di2 and the Edge 520 is 99% identical to Edge 1000 for almost half the price ( I think the only difference is the map used ). I dont use the Starva seg feature on the 520 though, I never got to like this feature and its not as good as Garmin made out, doesnt work for every seg for a start only the ones you loaded onto it before a ride.
Mikelkas... If I remember correctly, the 520 uses both GPS and the Russian equivalent GLONASS, combined. Thats maybe why it gets a quicker position fix after you turn it on and better accuracy?

It isn't though is it. The 1000 does true mapping whereas the 520 is a map background for the breadcrumb trail rather than just the black line of the 500 and 510. The 520's memory is also unable to accommodate anything more than local maps so you'd have to load and unload maps for wherever you're riding if you move about doing events around the country or continent.

bernithebiker

philthy3 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Theres a comparison chart here, that lists all the different features...
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comp ... 93#results

I have a 520 and recommend it too... a colour screen thats much more clear than earlier Garmins, handy gear indication if you have Di2 and the Edge 520 is 99% identical to Edge 1000 for almost half the price ( I think the only difference is the map used ). I dont use the Starva seg feature on the 520 though, I never got to like this feature and its not as good as Garmin made out, doesnt work for every seg for a start only the ones you loaded onto it before a ride.
Mikelkas... If I remember correctly, the 520 uses both GPS and the Russian equivalent GLONASS, combined. Thats maybe why it gets a quicker position fix after you turn it on and better accuracy?

It isn't though is it. The 1000 does true mapping whereas the 520 is a map background for the breadcrumb trail rather than just the black line of the 500 and 510. The 520's memory is also unable to accommodate anything more than local maps so you'd have to load and unload maps for wherever you're riding if you move about doing events around the country or continent.

I have all of NW France, all of Alps and Provence, and all of Majorca on my 520, and there's still quite a bit of space left.

wongataa

bernithebiker wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Theres a comparison chart here, that lists all the different features...
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comp ... 93#results

I have a 520 and recommend it too... a colour screen thats much more clear than earlier Garmins, handy gear indication if you have Di2 and the Edge 520 is 99% identical to Edge 1000 for almost half the price ( I think the only difference is the map used ). I dont use the Starva seg feature on the 520 though, I never got to like this feature and its not as good as Garmin made out, doesnt work for every seg for a start only the ones you loaded onto it before a ride.
Mikelkas... If I remember correctly, the 520 uses both GPS and the Russian equivalent GLONASS, combined. Thats maybe why it gets a quicker position fix after you turn it on and better accuracy?

It isn't though is it. The 1000 does true mapping whereas the 520 is a map background for the breadcrumb trail rather than just the black line of the 500 and 510. The 520's memory is also unable to accommodate anything more than local maps so you'd have to load and unload maps for wherever you're riding if you move about doing events around the country or continent.

I have all of NW France, all of Alps and Provence, and all of Majorca on my 520, and there's still quite a bit of space left.

The size of the maps depend on how much detail there is. Just countryside roads is a lot smaller than city roads (as there are a lot less) and if you add detail such as buildings then the size increases further.

redhanded

wongataa wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

Theres a comparison chart here, that lists all the different features...
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comp ... 93#results

I have a 520 and recommend it too... a colour screen thats much more clear than earlier Garmins, handy gear indication if you have Di2 and the Edge 520 is 99% identical to Edge 1000 for almost half the price ( I think the only difference is the map used ). I dont use the Starva seg feature on the 520 though, I never got to like this feature and its not as good as Garmin made out, doesnt work for every seg for a start only the ones you loaded onto it before a ride.
Mikelkas... If I remember correctly, the 520 uses both GPS and the Russian equivalent GLONASS, combined. Thats maybe why it gets a quicker position fix after you turn it on and better accuracy?

It isn't though is it. The 1000 does true mapping whereas the 520 is a map background for the breadcrumb trail rather than just the black line of the 500 and 510. The 520's memory is also unable to accommodate anything more than local maps so you'd have to load and unload maps for wherever you're riding if you move about doing events around the country or continent.

I have all of NW France, all of Alps and Provence, and all of Majorca on my 520, and there's still quite a bit of space left.

The size of the maps depend on how much detail there is. Just countryside roads is a lot smaller than city roads (as there are a lot less) and if you add detail such as buildings then the size increases further.

Exactly.

If you are getting your maps from http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl you can see how much memory is required for the maps selected.

On the 520 the maximum memory is about 100M (depending how much you need to store rides) and you could fit all of Wales onto that, but only about a 60-80 mile radius around London.

rs6mra1

The mapping on the 520 is slightly more detailed than the 510.
You are able to load maps on to the 520, whereas you can't with the 510
Garmin no longer produce the 510
520 released about 30 months after the 510 - read what you may into that in terms of support