Let's test the charging head


Since I feel the fast speed of charging Apple mobile phone with C port, and the convenience of taking a C port charger around the world, it's hard for me to return to the ordinary non fast charger. The biggest advantage of charging Apple mobile phone with C port is that the charging is very fierce in the early stage, and the battery health can be guaranteed with small current in the later stage. This means that the days when you had to carry a heavy power bank when you went out, and you had to hang your mobile phone to charge at any time are gone forever. Now you have fast charging. Most of the time, the charging efficiency is 50% in half an hour. As long as you have a socket, you can quickly return blood, and you don't have to worry about the mobile phone running out of power.

The evaluation products are all aware that they spend money from the market, so there is no restrictions from any manufacturer, can speak freely. So next, I will combine the two fast charging chargers I own + the three 30W chargers I have given me this time. Then we can make use of Apple's original 5W classic (not changed for ten thousand years, recently changed) to give a small horizontal evaluation.

Introduction to competitors

Let's look at the three 30 W quick chargers to be tested this time. I have two Anker and one Benks.

Anker's two charging heads are simple blue and white packaging, but the appearance of the charging head does not appear on the outer packaging, while Benks adopts the small meter like packaging, which is pure white with the appearance of the charging head. Open the box to see. Although Anker's two chargers are much bigger than those of Benks, the smaller the charging head is Anker's PD1. The story tells us that if a person looks fat, he is really fat, and it doesn't matter what the outer packing of the charging head.

To make the test more abundant, I have added three charging heads, 65W three ports (usb-c 45W) of puzzle and 18W usb-c of Zimi, and an original iPhone charging head.

Test plan:

Compare the size and weight of each charging head

Test protocol status for each charging head

Test the actual charging state of the charging head and understand the process of the mobile phone from empty to full

Analyze the possibility of iPhone charging fast and 30W charging

Summarize the advantages and disadvantages.

Size and weight

We often say that size is important because it directly affects happiness. No, it's the convenience of the charger. By measuring all chargers, please see the following visual picture to see the size and size of each charger. Unlike some things, the smaller the charging head is, the smaller the better, the lighter the weight is, the better. After all, it belongs to EDC equipment. Each bit of weight is a little bit more, and the final cumulative result is still very objective.

The weight and size of these charging heads have absolute advantages. Anker's new atom PD1 charger is undoubtedly. Due to the use of GaN (gallium nitride) new semiconductor materials, the size of the whole charger is very well controlled, which is a little smaller than the own powerport III mini, which is a little bigger than the Benks on the side.

Compared with the original gallium arsenide element, GaN has the following main characteristics:

Gan devices provide 10 times higher power density than GaAs devices: because of their high power density, they can provide greater bandwidth and higher amplifier gain, and can also improve efficiency due to the reduction of device size.

The working voltage of GaAs FET is five times higher than that of the same GaAs devices: because the devices can work at higher voltage, the designers can implement impedance matching more easily in the design of narrow band amplifiers.

The current provided by the FET device is twice higher than that of the GaAs FET. Because the current provided by the FET device is twice higher than that of the GaAs field effect device, the intrinsic bandwidth capability of the device is higher.

Of course, I don't understand these, but I know that the charger made of gallium nitride must be smaller, more powerful and more efficient.

Here is the dimension comparison

Fast charging protocol

Before testing the fast charging of several charging heads, I may need to introduce several common charging protocols. Because I only have apple mobile phone, my introduction focuses on Apple mobile phone.

Apple 2.4a: Apple supports its own fast charging protocol before PD fast charging, and can only support Apple mobile phone, with the maximum current of 2.4a and maximum charging power of 12W. Although it is not faster than 18W, it can be used in practice. After all, the whole charging process is also fast charging for the first half of the hour. It is generally not obvious that more than 15 minutes are more than overall.

QC 2.0/3.0: qc2.0 supports three fixed voltages of 5v/9v/12v, and provides the maximum power output of 24W at 2A current. Qc3.0 can support 3.6v-12v fluctuation voltage. The biggest advantage of QC 3.0 is that the voltage can be gradually changed, which avoids the choice of excessive rigidity of gear switch. This kind of processing can fine tune the state of mobile phone charging, reduce the heating, reduce power consumption and improve efficiency.

By the way, q4.0 is up to 28w for 3.0, and USB PD support is added to increase the maximum current in 5V state.... generally, qc3.0 is enough at present.

Pd2.0/3.0:pd2.0 is actually a subset of pd3.0. Essentially, the physical state of pd2.0 and pd3.0 is the same, but it is different in software. 3.0 mainly increases the connection identification of both sides of charging. It has some characteristics such as updating firmware and digital certificate signature through external equipment, which is of little significance to our ordinary users. Here is a PPS. Some pd3.0 chargers also have PPS. Generally speaking, it can adjust the ratio of voltage and current, and can adjust with a small step, better match various charging equipment, improve efficiency, reduce power and reduce heat (how can qc3.0 feel familiar), but the control accuracy of PPS is better than qc3.0, So Qualcomm then softened everything together and made qc4+

Please refer to the chart of this room I found online for details

So much, for ordinary users, PD is usually enough. It is not very important to have 2.0 or 3.0. But if there is PPS, it will be better, but it will also be supported by charging equipment.

Charging head actual support protocol:

Anker PowerPort III Mini:apple 2.4A/DCP-1.5A/QC3.0 4.2V-11.8V

Note that apple 2.4a is the charging speed of up to 12W with apple MFI certified charging line. DCP 1.5A is the common 7.5W charging.

Purchase proposal (the following prices are daily prices, please tangle the special prices by yourself):

The following purchase recommendations are only discussed for the six charging heads I tested. Other charging heads can be considered based on the data I listed, or we can discuss them together.

Undoubtedly, Anker's atom PD1 is the smallest in the charging head of this test because of the use of gallium nitride, and the 30W power is also suitable. If I want to carry it with me, I will definitely choose it. The only small disadvantage is that it is not compatible with my surface4pro PD induction line. But the other C-Port computers are charging normally. 178 price and only PD protocol, completely eliminated the agreement supporting old equipment, silver can be taken into consideration in their own hands. If you can't help it, Anker's Mini will be more compatible, only 20% larger in volume and weight, but it is cheaper to buy a large price and foldable design. I think it is more realistic to buy this, and this head is not compatible with my surface PD inducer. If you really want to pursue a slightly smaller size of atom PD1, then wait a little bit of price down to consider.