805 vs 764? No clue. I've test cast them when they came out. They are on the faster side for glass. They're good rods . If you want to consider something different yet with a line speed you like, consider the Epic 805/ CTS805 or maybe Fred Paddock's 805. I have enough 8' 5wts but if I was in the market for one that's accurate, on the quick side with some punch I'd get the Paddock. Ihad the chance to fish one for a few hours and was loving it. Pricey vs the Orvis but IMO well worth it.

I have them both. They are definitely from the same series, the 8' 5wt is the same rod as the 7'6" 4 wt, just a big bigger. Great rods which will do anything.

Now, why I like the 805 better.......
What I want from a glass rod is for it to feel and work like glass, not like slow graphite. A good glass rod has enough inertia and butt flex to flex under it's own weight with no line out. This makes them way better for short casts, you don't have to strip off lots of line and false cast before the rod is working. The SFG 4 wt is almost too light and fast to do that well. The 5wt does it better.

The SFG 5 wt was what got me into glass rods. I had never cast a good one before, and was blown away testing it at the Orvis factory. I thought about it for a day or so, and finally decided that since I had a fleet of good 5wt 9" graphite rods, I'd get the 4 wt sfg, rather than the 5 wt I demo'ed

It has been a good rod. It works well as a 4 or 5 wt rod, and has some real "backbone". I fished hoppers for two days on a sort of windy river, one day with an Orvis Far and Fine 7'9" 5 wt and one day with the SFG 4wt. The glass was just plain better. I once broke the 5 wt 9' graphite I had along so I had to use the 4wt SFG on a lake with long casts of 5 and 6 wt sinking lines. Again, it was great. Where it has not been my favorite is small streams with dry flies. It is just too fast and seems like over kill. I have some 3/4 and 4 wt rods I have more fun casting in those situations.

In all those situations where I like the 764, I love the 805. It can handle streamers, bass poppers. long sinking lines tossed a mile. I have to remember to strip off enough line so I don't shoot it all out and get snap back. It is definitely the rod that charmed me at the Orvis pond.

Obviously, you need both. I have not tried the 6 wt, but the 5 wt is up to most tasks where I'd fish that, and 8' is a nice length for all day casting.

PS my standard 9' 5wt graphite rods are getting pretty dusty!

I agree with Newfydog and that's precisely why I bought the SFG 805 over the 764.

I have both rods as well, and agreed with everything previously said. They are fantastic rods and best deal in high end commercial glass. I own many custom built glass by every custom builder in the glass world. I have said that in my opinion the best 3 weight is Larry Kenney 8’1”, and 4 weight is Mike McFarland 8’8” s glass. But owning a half a dozen various custom 5 weights I honestly steer to the Orvis 805.
The 7’6” 4 weight Orvis is equal to pricey iconic Thomas and Thomas Heirloom.
Orvis nailed this series.

I like the 7'6" 4wt SFG quite a bit. I think it's closer to a 4.5wt and fish it with a Rio Gold WF4 or a true-to-weight 5wt line like a Hook&Hackle WF5. The rod definitely has some backbone and in some ways reminds me of a 7'6" vintage Fenwick. Last year I built out a custom version with the grip and reel seat more to my liking than the factory version. Here's a link to it:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=62322

I agree with Newfydog and that's precisely why I bought the SFG 763 over the 764. Although the SFG 805 is a better all-rounder, I prefer the SFG 866 over it when fishing bass ponds.

Yours is an older post, but I'm new to the forum. Probably too late for the feedback, but I owned both the 7' 6" 4 wt. and the 8' 5 wt. To me, the 7'6" 4 wt is the "hands down" winner. The 5 wt isn't bad... but I sold it because the 7'6" did everything the 8-ft did, only smoother.

Kilgore

I had a chance to cast both of these rods recently; as I own the 805 and borrowed the 764 from Orvis store manager. I'm in the market for something "less powerful" than the 805. After casting them side by side, many times in my yard, with their respective line weights; there was not a real discernable difference. In my opinion the 805 reminded me more of the traditional Fenwicks, faster but similar in action. The 764 had more of a tip flex action. Since they were very similar, couldn't justify buying the 764. I think the 764 is more popular, but thought I'd share my experience. I'm curious how the 763 feels.