Related
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Free mobile app
Huh?!
Sent from my SM-G530H using Tapatalk
Pretty sure he wants to know if the new macbook charger will work. Right now that is the only usb type c to type c charger.
T_VASS said:
Pretty sure he wants to know if the new macbook charger will work. Right now that is the only usb type c to type c charger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, Google sells Type-C to Type-C ones but its out of stock right now
I'm fairly certain Apple's USB-C charger will work fine, but it's $49 without a cable.
Google's offering is cheaper, has two ports, plus a cable so I'd wait for that.
Apple Stuff
You want a charger compatible with Qualcomm Quick Charge 2.0 for the 6P. Quick charge allows charging at 5V, 9V and 12V. The charger will supply the voltage/amperage appropriate for the current charge level of the battery. Most older phone chargers are 5V and will work, but will not quick charge the phone. You can, however, us a Type C to Type C cable and charge your phone from a MacBook Pro Type C connector.
dwswager said:
You want a charger compatible with Qualcomm Quick Charge 2.0 for the 6P. Quick charge allows charging at 5V, 9V and 12V. The charger will supply the voltage/amperage appropriate for the current charge level of the battery. Most older phone chargers are 5V and will work, but will not quick charge the phone. You can, however, us a Type C to Type C cable and charge your phone from a MacBook Pro Type C connector.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a misnomer for the QC2.0 stuff. The usb-c to usb-c charger is automatically going to work with 5v/3a charging without the need for QC enabled functionality. Actually, there is some debate as to whether or not QC2.0 will even work with this phone if you have a standard usb-a to usb-c connector on a QC2.0 usb-a port.
htowngator said:
That's a misnomer for the QC2.0 stuff. The usb-c to usb-c charger is automatically going to work with 5v/3a charging without the need for QC enabled functionality. Actually, there is some debate as to whether or not QC2.0 will even work with this phone if you have a standard usb-a to usb-c connector on a QC2.0 usb-a port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the Type C to Type C has nothing to do with QuickCharge. It is a USB standard.
However, QC 2.0 works now on dozens of phones with Type A to Type B (Micro USB 2.0) connectors. If you connect it to a PC USB 2.0 connector, you will only get 5V! In fact, I suspect that even my USB 3.0 ports on my Gigabyte P5-USB3 motherboard also only supplies 5V. You must have a charger port set up to supply the higher voltages. If you look at the Wall/Car chargers that are QC2.0 compliant they usually have 1 QC2.0 slot and 1 or more standard slots that will only supply 5V.
Interesting point is the iPhone 6s actually has Qualcom QC 2.0 built in, but not utilized by Apple. The supplied charger with 6s is underpowered and a 6s can be charged much more quickly with a higher amp charger like that for an iPad or Kindle Fire.
dwswager said:
Interesting point is the iPhone 6s actually has Qualcom QC 2.0 built in, but not utilized by Apple. The supplied charger with 6s is underpowered and a 6s can be charged much more quickly with a higher amp charger like that for an iPad or Kindle Fire.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't quick-charge soc specific, as in only on Qualcomm processors?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
dwswager said:
Yes, the Type C to Type C has nothing to do with QuickCharge. It is a USB standard.
However, QC 2.0 works now on dozens of phones with Type A to Type B (Micro USB 2.0) connectors. If you connect it to a PC USB 2.0 connector, you will only get 5V! In fact, I suspect that even my USB 3.0 ports on my Gigabyte P5-USB3 motherboard also only supplies 5V. You must have a charger port set up to supply the higher voltages. If you look at the Wall/Car chargers that are QC2.0 compliant they usually have 1 QC2.0 slot and 1 or more standard slots that will only supply 5V.
Interesting point is the iPhone 6s actually has Qualcom QC 2.0 built in, but not utilized by Apple. The supplied charger with 6s is underpowered and a 6s can be charged much more quickly with a higher amp charger like that for an iPad or Kindle Fire.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It works but it won't charge above the 5V rating hence no quick charge... Your intentionally stating something that can be misread
---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------
heleos said:
Isn't quick-charge soc specific, as in only on Qualcomm processors?
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It uses Qualcomm power control chip so it cna work with other SOC's like Intel lr Exynos
Pilz said:
It works but it won't charge above the 5V rating hence no quick charge... Your intentionally stating something that can be misread
---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------
It uses Qualcomm power control chip so it cna work with other SOC's like Intel lr Exynos
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Learn something new every day!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
heleos said:
Learn something new every day!
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My Zenfone 2 had QC2 with an intel chip but ASUS called it quick charge with their 'boostmaster' charger but in reality it was just QC 2.0. Samsung calls it adaptive fast charging but its still QC2 etc....the Nexus likely doesn't support QC 2 because it requires a license as another member mentioned which would add to the overall cost
Not sure what you think is misleading, but let me try to clarify:
1. If you have a QC2.0 compliant charger and a QC2.0 compliant device, then QC2.0 will work regardless of the type of connector on the ends of the cable.
2. iPhone 6s has the capability for QC 2.0 built in, but can not do it because it is not utilized. However, you can provide higher amperage to the device at the same voltage than what the standard 6s charger supplies and hence, it will charge faster (not QC 2.0 though).
Pilz said:
It works but it won't charge above the 5V rating hence no quick charge... Your intentionally stating something that can be misread
---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------
It uses Qualcomm power control chip so it cna work with other SOC's like Intel lr Exynos
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dwswager said:
Not sure what you think is misleading, but let me try to clarify:
1. If you have a QC2.0 compliant charger and a QC2.0 compliant device, then QC2.0 will work regardless of the type of connector on the ends of the cable.
2. iPhone 6s has the capability for QC 2.0 built in, but can not do it because it is not utilized. However, you can provide higher amperage to the device at the same voltage than what the standard 6s charger supplies and hence, it will charge faster (not QC 2.0 though).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Understood, but there are plenty of threads debating what the actual volts/amps will be on the phone if you use A-to-C with QC2.0 chargers. According to the spec it is 15W (9V/1.8A or 5V/3A), correct?
dwswager said:
Not sure what you think is misleading, but let me try to clarify:
1. If you have a QC2.0 compliant charger and a QC2.0 compliant device, then QC2.0 will work regardless of the type of connector on the ends of the cable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 6P isn't a QC2.0 compliant device.
Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk
htowngator said:
Understood, but there are plenty of threads debating what the actual volts/amps will be on the phone if you use A-to-C with QC2.0 chargers. According to the spec it is 15W (9V/1.8A or 5V/3A), correct?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will get the voltage/amps determined by the charger. The 6P is not QC 2.0 CERTIFIED. Google didn't go for the pretty sticker.
From the QC 2.0 FAQ:
Q6: Does it matter what type of charging cable is used with a Quick Charge 2.0 adapter?
A: Quick Charge 2.0 is designed to be connector-independent. Quick Charge 2.0 can be implemented with a variety of formats, including USB Type-A, USB micro, USB Type-C, and other proprietary connectors.
Quick Charge 2.0 high-voltage operation is designed to minimize charging issues associated with long or thin cables, allowing for a superior charging experience, independent of cable type.
dwswager said:
It will get the voltage/amps determined by the charger. The 6P is not QC 2.0 CERTIFIED. Google didn't go for the pretty sticker.
From the QC 2.0 FAQ:
Q6: Does it matter what type of charging cable is used with a Quick Charge 2.0 adapter?
A: Quick Charge 2.0 is designed to be connector-independent. Quick Charge 2.0 can be implemented with a variety of formats, including USB Type-A, USB micro, USB Type-C, and other proprietary connectors.
Quick Charge 2.0 high-voltage operation is designed to minimize charging issues associated with long or thin cables, allowing for a superior charging experience, independent of cable type.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're arguing this in two different threads with multiple people trying to educate you on the power PIC controller interface. The chipset can handle the charging, but the actual usb power interface controller won't pass along those signals. It's not like applying a wire and getting charge -- there is a handshake that happens for the correct charging current and voltage to be applied.
htowngator said:
You're arguing this in two different threads with multiple people trying to educate you on the power PIC controller interface. The chipset can handle the charging, but the actual usb power interface controller won't pass along those signals. It's not like applying a wire and getting charge -- there is a handshake that happens for the correct charging current and voltage to be applied.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gotcha. The phone will identify the voltage requirement and the charger (assuming intelligent) will supply that voltage at it's rated amps. Actually, the default for all USB is 5V. If the charger does not get the handshake it will default to 5V. So a 5V/3A charger that is capable of multiple voltages will only supply 5V to such a device. Which is what the Google charger supplies. Most chargers will default to 5V and less than 3A however.
I will be interested in testing the Google charger and phone when I get it in my hands. The problem with charging is the change in resistance as the battery charges which is the point in multiple voltages. I like the new USB-Power Delivery setup, but there will be teething problem for early adoption.
Which one of these cables support fast charging for the 6P?
I do not want to get new adapters so hopefully one of these cables are good enough
Thanks
1 - http://www.amazon.com/Yoozon®-Hi-sp...45399787&sr=8-3&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
2 - http://www.amazon.com/Multi-Colour-...45399787&sr=8-4&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
3 - http://www.amazon.com/iOrange-E-Bra...45399787&sr=8-7&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
This one mentions this, Support the Maximum 2.4A fast charging and the speed of data sync up to 480 Mbps however I thought it needs to be 3A to support fast charging, if someone could please clarify, thanks
4 - http://www.amazon.com/NewLobo-1-met...45399787&sr=8-6&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
5 - http://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matters...45399787&sr=8-8&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
6 - http://www.amazon.com/JOTO-Standard...5399787&sr=8-11&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
None of them will. You might get close to 2 amps if you are lucky, but no Type-A port will support Type-C fast charging. While cable quality matters, its more dependant on the load the phone can draw from the charger.
See: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=63220997&postcount=1
Continuing off what Elnrik said, you can still go ahead and buy yourself some generic quality USB A to USB C cables (see one plus cables for quality and value). You'll get pretty standard old charge rates through them but they are better than nothing in a pinch, for the time being, unless you want to replace all your old adapters.
I know you said Amazon, but Google sells an a to c cable capable of 5v/3a
https://store.google.com/product/usb_type_c_to_usb_standard_a_plug_cable
Currently out of stock though
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I am trying to find one as well that will do 3A/5W. So far I have found this one that according to the description will do it.
http://www.amazon.com/Rankie®-Hi-sp...29503&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=usb-c+cable&psc=1
heleos said:
I know you said Amazon, but Google sells an a to c cable capable of 5v/3a
https://store.google.com/product/usb_type_c_to_usb_standard_a_plug_cable
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't know what Google are playing at with the spec for that cable. There's no way in the world a USB Type-A 2.0 cable can deliver 3A. You absolutely need Type-C end to end to achieve that.
If I'm wrong, I'm gonna look like a right chump. But I haven't been ravenously soaking up info on this topic for nothing!
krazyq said:
Which one of these cables support fast charging for the 6P?
I do not want to get new adapters so hopefully one of these cables are good enough
Thanks
1 - http://www.amazon.com/Yoozon®-Hi-sp...45399787&sr=8-3&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
2 - http://www.amazon.com/Multi-Colour-...45399787&sr=8-4&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
3 - http://www.amazon.com/iOrange-E-Bra...45399787&sr=8-7&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
This one mentions this, Support the Maximum 2.4A fast charging and the speed of data sync up to 480 Mbps however I thought it needs to be 3A to support fast charging, if someone could please clarify, thanks
4 - http://www.amazon.com/NewLobo-1-met...45399787&sr=8-6&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
5 - http://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matters...45399787&sr=8-8&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
6 - http://www.amazon.com/JOTO-Standard...5399787&sr=8-11&keywords=usb+type+c+to+type+a
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With the Nexus 6P, none of them. It is not the cable, but the 6P that is the culprit. All those cables will actually support 5V/3A. For some bizarre reason, Google designed the charging system in the 6P around the Type C spec (the spec for a connector) and not around the USB Power Delivery Spec, but then used the configuration channel in USB Type C which eliminates the possibility of using Type A to Type C for putting 5V/3A into the 6P. Even Apple respects USB Power Delivery in the MacBook Pro.
I think Google's mistake (or at least foolish decision) will become apparent next year when the next Nexus phones (and a lot of other laptops, tablets and phones) have Type C, but not 5V/3A and instead support more standard power like 5V/2A and 12V/1.5A. There is a reason Qualcom chose those 2 combinations for Quick Charge 2.0. They didn't pull them out of their butt like Google.
To me, not having the device in my hands, is the biggest single disappointment with the phone. Don't get me wrong, even 5V/1.5A is decent power for charging a phone. Guess the other disappointment also centers around the implementation of Type C and not allowing HDMI via the Type C connector which it was expressly designed to do.
dwswager said:
With the Nexus 6P, none of them. It is not the cable, but the 6P that is the culprit. All those cables will actually support 5V/3A. For some bizarre reason, Google designed the charging system in the 6P around the Type C spec (the spec for a connector) and not around the USB Power Delivery Spec, but then used the configuration channel in USB Type C which eliminates the possibility of using Type A to Type C for putting 5V/3A into the 6P. Even Apple respects USB Power Delivery in the MacBook Pro.
I think Google's mistake (or at least foolish decision) will become apparent next year when the next Nexus phones (and a lot of other laptops, tablets and phones) have Type C, but not 5V/3A and instead support more standard power like 5V/2A and 12V/1.5A. There is a reason Qualcom chose those 2 combinations for Quick Charge 2.0. They didn't pull them out of their butt like Google.
To me, not having the device in my hands, is the biggest single disappointment with the phone. Don't get me wrong, even 5V/1.5A is decent power for charging a phone. Guess the other disappointment also centers around the implementation of Type C and not allowing HDMI via the Type C connector which it was expressly designed to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow super lame...
So I'm going to have to buy new type adapters
(wall and car charger) and new type c to c cables?
I have the Moto X Pure right and the only reason I'm getting the 6P is cos of the battery and camera which I'm hoping to be better.
Snarklife said:
I really don't know what Google are playing at with the spec for that cable. There's no way in the world a USB Type-A 2.0 cable can deliver 3A. You absolutely need Type-C end to end to achieve that.
If I'm wrong, I'm gonna look like a right chump. But I haven't been ravenously soaking up info on this topic for nothing!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would tend to agree with you, and the other people that have researched the actual USB spec, but I feel like it's this was an error, they would realize it quickly and change it. The hire some smaht people at Google
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Snarklife said:
I really don't know what Google are playing at with the spec for that cable. There's no way in the world a USB Type-A 2.0 cable can deliver 3A. You absolutely need Type-C end to end to achieve that.
If I'm wrong, I'm gonna look like a right chump. But I haven't been ravenously soaking up info on this topic for nothing!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't confuse the cable's capability to handle 3A with what the SPEC allows. A Type A to Type C cable can actually handle 3A. Both connectors can do it. Even a Micro B can do 3A. The Spec does not support it. And here is the big issue. The spec, both original and the newer ones including USB-PD are set up for simultaneous power and data. For a charger, we are only worried with power and data speed/corruption is not an issue.
USB PD allows 60W (20V/3A) through micro B and100W (20V/5A) through standard A and B. It requires specially 'marked' cables which will be a little beefier than standard 2.0 cables. But the connectors can handle it.
So what is the solution?
Get new car and wall chargers only usb type c cables?
Okay, this is interesting. So, if the cable and both the A and C connectors can both handle 5/3, could you plug this cable into a block that pushes out 5/3 via a female A port and achieve maximum charge velocity?
That goes against what so many have said - that you need C to C - but I'd be delighted to hear it.
EDIT: Just saw @dwswager's post. What he said.
-------
TLDR:
USB TYPE-A has standards not specs, limitations are grounded in physics not words and it is possible for a USB type A to deliver 3A with lower Ohms at 5v with the right power adapter/hub.
USB 2.0 refers to Data rates not charge rates.
Bonus: 3A 5V is one of the Quick Charge Class A power standards for C to C even if 6P isnt yet certified for it. Could be Google pushing for an A to C 3A to 5V Quick Charge USB Class?
Snarklife said:
I really don't know what Google are playing at with the spec for that cable. There's no way in the world a USB Type-A 2.0 cable can deliver 3A. You absolutely need Type-C end to end to achieve that.
If I'm wrong, I'm gonna look like a right chump. But I haven't been ravenously soaking up info on this topic for nothing!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
heleos said:
I would tend to agree with you, and the other people that have researched the actual USB spec, but I feel like it's this was an error, they would realize it quickly and change it. The hire some smaht people at Google
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the conversation over USB "specs" has been misconstrued. What people are looking at are USB standards. Standards are not limits. They are heavily optimized guidelines for creating compatibility and uniformity with as many devices as possible and to protect as many devices as possible from accidental burnout.
USB 2.0 Data rate does not prevent a USB A port from having a 3.1 or similar charging configuration.
As is already clear, Google is not following USB charging standards of any kind with the 6P and noted by @dwswager.
It is entirely possibly to throw 3a INTO a USB A standard cable; ampere limitation isnt the problem USB 3.1 standards for USB A do it perfectly fine but at 3a 12v(4ohm), which is a higher ohm set up than with 3a 5v(1.67ohm). We also know that USB 3.1 standards allow for 2a 5v (2.5ohm), which is even closer to the 3a 5v set up. .The standards are set at those points because the lower the ohms the great the heat created, think of it like a welder, or a sub-ohm vaporizer.
Note that the size of the USB 3.1 pin size don't change due to the change in ohms. What is likely changing is the conducting material and size of the transmission wire.
Most 2a 5v cables run cool because the cable is a 2.5ohm resistance cable and its getting fed precisely 2a, as very carefully designed, which then makes that cable a "5v" (2.5ohm x 2a) cable. A 3a 5v cable would hence need to have a lower resistance of 1.67ohm, which is higher conduction, likely from a more optimized conduit throughout.
The cable can exist under Huawei/ Google's unique of standard setup.
Thing is, nobody as part of the USB standards have ever said you CANNOT put 3a through a USB Type A, but also nobody outside of chinese ebay sales sell anything with USB A that puts out 3a at 5v right now (Google for it, they exist. Wouldn't recommend buying one).
Bonus from Google CS (Source: http://www.droid-life.com/2015/10/19/nexus-6p-nexus-5x-quick-charge/#comment-2315607310):
"Currently, the Nexus 6P isn't listed on Qualcomm's list of devices
that have been tested and certified to be compatible with Qualcomm Quick Charge
2.0 chargers, so I can't say with 100% certainty yet. This is something that can
change the longer the Nexus 6P is out on the market and is tested for
compatibility and interoperability."
---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------
Snarklife said:
Okay, this is interesting. So, if the cable and both the A and C connectors can both handle 5/3, could you plug this cable into a block that pushes out 5/3 via a female A port and achieve maximum charge velocity?
That goes against what so many have said - that you need C to C - but I'd be delighted to hear it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Turns out electrical engineering and understanding takes more than misconstruing USB standards as specs.
theTqM said:
Turns out electrical engineering and understanding takes more than misconstruing USB standards as specs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have been fighting this corner since the day of the announcement, I am glad to hear someone else say it. There is absolutely nothing about USB Type-C that has any effect on wall chargers and the amount of current it can draw, and equally nothing stopping Type-A from providing aforementioned current / voltage. What it needs its a cable that can handle it (like the offical Google one), and a wall charger that will provide it, simple as that.
vido.ardes said:
I have been fighting this corner since the day of the announcement, I am glad to hear someone else say it. There is absolutely nothing about USB Type-C that has any effect on wall chargers and the amount of current it can draw, and equally nothing stopping Type-A from providing aforementioned current / voltage. What it needs its a cable that can handle it (like the offical Google one), and a wall charger that will provide it, simple as that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank God! Realism
If under USB-PD Profile 5, Type A can handle 20V/5A, why people think it can't handle 5V/3A is a mystery. The question has been will the phone accept it with an undetectable (to the Type C device) Type A to Type C cable by the 6P. The answer appears to be yes it can.
dwswager said:
Thank God! Realism
If under USB-PD Profile 5, Type A can handle 20V/5A, why people think it can't handle 5V/3A is a mystery. The question has been will the phone accept it with an undetectable (to the Type C device) Type A to Type C cable by the 6P. The answer appears to be yes it can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've bought the cable I linked to from Google (it has already turned up) and I have bought a car charger that claims to output 3A/5V so I will be testing as soon as my device turns up. The car charger wasn't cheap, but it has been rebranded a lot so it's 50/50 as to whether or not it will hold up to it's claim. It has a type-C port as well so I can at least check they output the same.
@vido.ardes @dwswager. If what I quoted earlier from G CS is correct and the Nexus 6P hopefully-perhaps-maybe gets certified by Qualcomm for Quick Charge, and google updates the kernel to enable it then we'll have the entire world of Qualcomm certified 3A Quick Chargers at our disposal. Its a hope.
theTqM said:
@vido.ardes @dwswager. If what I quoted earlier from G CS is correct and the Nexus 6P hopefully-perhaps-maybe gets certified by Qualcomm for Quick Charge, and google updates the kernel to enable it then we'll have the entire world of Qualcomm certified 3A Quick Chargers at our disposal. Its a hope.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure how it would get certified. QC 2.0 takes an extra chip in the device and the 810 SOC is not QC3.0 certified.
dwswager said:
Not sure how it would get certified. QC 2.0 takes an extra chip in the device and the 810 SOC is not QC3.0 certified.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right regarding QC 3.0.. however:
Check out the 5x teardown.. it has a QC 2.0 quick charge chip: http://9to5google.com/2015/10/22/nexus-5x-teardown-repairability/
Chances that the 6P has the same.. high...
theTqM said:
You're right regarding QC 3.0.. however:
Check out the 5x teardown.. it has a QC 2.0 quick charge chip: http://9to5google.com/2015/10/22/nexus-5x-teardown-repairability/
Chances that the 6P has the same.. high...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's interesting!
All this charging crap could have been avoided if Google would have just spent 30 seconds explaining it. I suspect that they used Type C and designed the circuit to take 3A and wanted to call that fast charging without having to actually implement a fast charging solution.
If I had the 6P in my hands I would get a few chargers:
Google Captive (5V/3A)
A Type C 5V/3A
A Type A 5V/3A (or the ASUS Transformer charger with micro B and a micro B to C adapter.
A 5V/1A charger.
Then with phone less than 10% charged plug them in and check the current draw. All of them should be somewhere close to the Nominal rated current output.
Then with the phone above 90% charged, plug them up again and they all should be drawing about the same current because the current draw should be well below the rated current of all the chargers.
Considering how screwed up the 5V3A situation is, I decided to jump off that bus and order some regular, high quality, low price, 2.4A (per port) Aukey chargers that can be used with cheap ass cables that no one wants. They will be Type A to Type C so other phones and tablets can use them. And no QC 2.0 because they are about 1/2 the price and if QC 2.0 or 3.0 becomes an issue with other devices in my house, I will buy new ones. The car charger is $12.99 (They sell a bigger one for $6.99) on Amazon and the wall one is $7.99. Google's massive FUBAR solved!
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Yep don't know what half the smartphone world is on about with all this 3A rubbish.
How many people charge their phone over night - MOST
How many people are truly upset and really feel annoyed that their device is not charging at 3A to the point where they will go out their way to get 3A everything.
Chances are alot of these people come from using 1.2A chargers or turbo chargers or QI charging - did you see them whine about how slow it was back in those non 3A days ? not many
its just the utterly butt hurt whiners and those who suck the exlixer from googles every word andneed 3A leads / chargers.
if you charge over night a 1A or a 1.2A or a 2A or QI wont make any difference when you wake up in the morning.
A have a 3A from the phones box and a turbo charger and "normal" chargers from older phones and a 2.4A car charger and it charges plenty fast enough.
for those who wish to tell me that the turbo charger wont work with fast charge go do one, I plug it in and it charges fast enough for me to not cry all over the internet simply beacuse some google pixel dude is reviewing usb leads and mine is not one yadda yadda.
Isn't the problem with cheapass (USB-C) cables is that they pull more power than the adapter can push? and possibly fry it?
hutzdani said:
Yep don't know what half the smartphone world is on about with all this 3A rubbish.
How many people charge their phone over night - MOST
How many people are truly upset and really feel annoyed that their device is not charging at 3A to the point where they will go out their way to get 3A everything.
Chances are alot of these people come from using 1.2A chargers or turbo chargers or QI charging - did you see them whine about how slow it was back in those non 3A days ? not many
its just the utterly butt hurt whiners and those who suck the exlixer from googles every word andneed 3A leads / chargers.
if you charge over night a 1A or a 1.2A or a 2A or QI wont make any difference when you wake up in the morning.
A have a 3A from the phones box and a turbo charger and "normal" chargers from older phones and a 2.4A car charger and it charges plenty fast enough.
for those who wish to tell me that the turbo charger wont work with fast charge go do one, I plug it in and it charges fast enough for me to not cry all over the internet simply beacuse some google pixel dude is reviewing usb leads and mine is not one yadda yadda.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Neat.
catire said:
Isn't the problem with cheapass (USB-C) cables is that they pull more power than the adapter can push? and possibly fry it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is also my understanding. People can use any charging brick they prefer as long as they are using quality type A to type C cables that are designed to spec.
jTink010 said:
People can use any charging brick they prefer as long as they are using quality type A to type C cables that are designed to spec.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Thank you.
catire said:
Isn't the problem with cheapass (USB-C) cables is that they pull more power than the adapter can push? and possibly fry it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both the phone and these chargers have over-current and thermal protection in the device circuits. Hence, the chargers won't try to provide more current than it can reliably deliver. No worries!
dwswager said:
Both the phone and these chargers have over-current and thermal protection in the device circuits. Hence, the chargers won't try to provide more current than it can reliably deliver. No worries!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think what they are trying to say is, the problem is not on the charger itself, but on the cheap/wrongly spec'ed cables. If you had a bad cable which tries to pull 3A from any USB-A charger (which supports up to 2.4A), it would fry the charger.
ctbear said:
I think what they are trying to say is, the problem is not on the charger itself, but on the cheap/wrongly spec'ed cables. If you had a bad cable which tries to pull 3A from any USB-A charger (which supports up to 2.4A), it would fry the charger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issue is that the phone will think it can pull 3A because the cable design and the charger will try to deliver and will over heat and burn out. But the phone should have under-voltage lockout and the charger has both over-current and over temperature protection.
dwswager said:
The issue is that the phone will think it can pull 3A because the cable design and the charger will try to deliver and will over heat and burn out. But the phone should have under-voltage lockout and the charger has both over-current and over temperature protection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...which is not even needed on a 3A charger because it supports the 3A current pull. By switching to another charger and lowering the maximum current output, you are actually increasing the risk of a fire, because now your faulty cable will try to pull 3A (when it shouldn't) from a 2.4A charger.
ctbear said:
......you are actually increasing the risk of a fire, because now your faulty cable will try to pull 3A (when it shouldn't) from a 2.4A charger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Repeat after me, a cable represents an open circuit to the charger and draws no current. The phone is the load. The cable presents resistance to the flow of current.
Lightning deal
well reading more, 2.1a and 1.0a
dwswager said:
Repeat after me, a cable represents an open circuit to the charger and draws no current. The phone is the load. The cable presents resistance to the flow of current.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except that a usb cable is more than just a conducting wire. There is a lot more information the phone requires before it "negotiates" how much current it should draw from the power source. The reason why this even makes the news is that some cables (with a USB-A end) uses a much lower resistor pullup value that expected in the USB specifications, which leads the phone to believe that the other end is capable of producing the 3A current (according to USB-C specs). This has been reported numerous times by different articles and mentioned by the Google engineer himself, and can be found in the actual USB-C specification document. If you don't believe me, at least read his reviews on Amazon. He certainly knows and explains a lot better than I do.
The Amazon basics car charger that I already have adds juice to the phone while Waze is running. Good enough for me. I don't charge my phone overnight, I just charge it when I get up before I leave for work. Leave with 100% battery every day
dwertz said:
well reading more, 2.1a and 1.0a
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without a link, I would suspect this is a standard dual port charger with one port 2.1A and the other 1A!
ctbear said:
Except that a usb cable is more than just a conducting wire. There is a lot more information the phone requires before it "negotiates" how much current it should draw from the power source. The reason why this even makes the news is that some cables (with a USB-A end) uses a much lower resistor pullup value that expected in the USB specifications, which leads the phone to believe that the other end is capable of producing the 3A current (according to USB-C specs). This has been reported numerous times by different articles and mentioned by the Google engineer himself, and can be found in the actual USB-C specification document. If you don't believe me, at least read his reviews on Amazon. He certainly knows and explains a lot better than I do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get me wrong, any cable should be designed to USB specifications. But so should the devices! The Fundamental problem is 5V/3A. Google apparently designed the phone around the connector spec instead of the USB 2.0 specification. 3A is the design requirement in USB Type C spec for what a standard cable must be able to handle, not a USB power specification. Look around and count the number of 5V/3A USB devices you find. I can only think of one...a specific Asus Transformer model that came with a captive 5V/3A charger with a Micro USB connector and warning labels not to plug it into any other USB devices. Even so, the Transformer did port detection so it wouldn't try to over draw from compliant source ports.
The BC1.2 (Battery Charging Spec) outlines three distinct types of USB port and two key monikers. A "charging" port is one that delivers currents higher than 500mA. A "downstream" port signals data as per USB 2.0. The BC1.2 specification also establishes both how each port should appear to the end device, and the protocol to identify what type of port is implemented. The three USB BC1.2 port types are SDP, DCP, and CDP:
1. Standard Downstream Port (SDP) This port features 15kΩ pulldown resistors on both the D+ and D- lines. The current limits are : 2.5mA when suspended, 100mA when connected, and 500mA when connected and configured for higher power.
2. Dedicated Charging Port (DCP) This port does not support any data transfer, but is capable of supplying charge currents beyond 1.5A. It features a short between the D+ and D- lines. This type of port allows for wall chargers and car chargers with high-charge capability without the need for enumeration.
3. Charging Downstream Port (CDP) This port allows for both high-current charging and data transfer fully compliant with USB 2.0. It features the 15kΩ pulldown resistors necessary for the D+ and D- communication, and also has internal circuitry that is switched in during the charger detection phase. This internal circuitry allows the portable device to distinguish a CDP from other port types.
Bottom line - if this phone is of such poor design that it starts fires, what will the common element of all those fires end up being? The Phone!
dwswager said:
Don't get me wrong, any cable should be designed to USB specifications. But so should the devices! The Fundamental problem is 5V/3A. Google apparently designed the phone around the connector spec instead of the USB 2.0 specification. 3A is the design requirement in USB Type C spec for what a standard cable must be able to handle, not a USB power specification. Look around and count the number of 5V/3A USB devices you find. I can only think of one...a specific Asus Transformer model that came with a captive 5V/3A charger with a Micro USB connector and warning labels not to plug it into any other USB devices. Even so, the Transformer did port detection so it wouldn't try to over draw from compliant source ports.
The BC1.2 (Battery Charging Spec) outlines three distinct types of USB port and two key monikers. A "charging" port is one that delivers currents higher than 500mA. A "downstream" port signals data as per USB 2.0. The BC1.2 specification also establishes both how each port should appear to the end device, and the protocol to identify what type of port is implemented. The three USB BC1.2 port types are SDP, DCP, and CDP:
1. Standard Downstream Port (SDP) This port features 15kΩ pulldown resistors on both the D+ and D- lines. The current limits are : 2.5mA when suspended, 100mA when connected, and 500mA when connected and configured for higher power.
2. Dedicated Charging Port (DCP) This port does not support any data transfer, but is capable of supplying charge currents beyond 1.5A. It features a short between the D+ and D- lines. This type of port allows for wall chargers and car chargers with high-charge capability without the need for enumeration.
3. Charging Downstream Port (CDP) This port allows for both high-current charging and data transfer fully compliant with USB 2.0. It features the 15kΩ pulldown resistors necessary for the D+ and D- communication, and also has internal circuitry that is switched in during the charger detection phase. This internal circuitry allows the portable device to distinguish a CDP from other port types.
Bottom line - if this phone is of such poor design that it starts fires, what will the common element of all those fires end up being? The Phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no. The phone is compliant with the USB-C spec, which allows for considerably more than 3W (See: the Apple Macbook USB-C charger, the Chromebook Pixel USB-C charger and so on.) If you are using a C->C cable, with a compliant C charger, there should be no issue. The issue comes into play with a C->A cable which is not compliant, which causes the phone to think it's got a C connection and thus try to draw more power (3W) than the power supply can put out (effectively, it shorts out the power supply.) This can smoke the power supply. Literally.
Solution: (a) Use only C->C charging (this is your best bet, since it is the fastest) or (b) use a compliant C->A cable with any USB A charger. The phone will then negotiate an appropriate charging rate, either very slow (straight USB) or BC 1.2 (if available) which will still be slower than C->C.
Personally, I'd just stick with C->C and not worry much about the cable, *except* if you are using a C->A cable for data purposes, in which case, choose that cable wisely or risk frying your USB port.
I personally will be getting this http://goo.gl/CXIaHi to replace my car charger and possibly a second home charger. Along with getting a Type C - C cable from Google to eliminate any cable concerns. If you stick with Type c-c cables for charging you will be more than fine. I don't plan on charging my 6p using a Type A - C cable ever anyways.
Specifications:
Input (Micro): 5V/9V/12V 2A Max
Input (Type-C): 5V/3A Max
USB Output: 5V/ 2.4A
Type-C Output: 5V/3A Max
QC 2.0 Output: 5V/2.4A, 9V/1.5A, 12V/1.2A Max
dwswager said:
Bottom line - if this phone is of such poor design that it starts fires, what will the common element of all those fires end up being? The Phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, because that's what a company like google willingly intends to do. Provide a phone that is capable of burning down houses and cars and entering into massive lawsuits in the process...because that's smart business.
It seems to me that companies are just inaccurately advertising to make a quick buck out the gate. They know that they can seriously capitalize on a situation when newer technology is involved. Doesnt that seem a little more feasible? Most consumers read reviews and only care the cable has proper connectors, a decent length, and doesnt feel thin and cheap. Most consumers dont realize how much more goes into cables as you can tell by 98% of the reviews.
At this point I'm just waiting for Google to get more cables in stock in the Play Store because the price is the just about the same as all these off brand cables and I feel they should work better since they make the damn phone.
ctbear said:
Except that a usb cable is more than just a conducting wire. There is a lot more information the phone requires before it "negotiates" how much current it should draw from the power source. The reason why this even makes the news is that some cables (with a USB-A end) uses a much lower resistor pullup value that expected in the USB specifications, which leads the phone to believe that the other end is capable of producing the 3A current (according to USB-C specs). This has been reported numerous times by different articles and mentioned by the Google engineer himself, and can be found in the actual USB-C specification document. If you don't believe me, at least read his reviews on Amazon. He certainly knows and explains a lot better than I do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd be interested in reading his reviews, do you have a link?
DebauchedSloth said:
Actually no. The phone is compliant with the USB-C spec, which allows for considerably more than 3W (See: the Apple Macbook USB-C charger, the Chromebook Pixel USB-C charger and so on.) .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BINGO...and that is the fail! The Type C Spec is not a power spec, it is for the design of the connectors and cables which happen to carry power! You do not design a device around the specification for a 20 cent piece of metal. You design the device around the USB 2.0, 3.0 or 3.1 specification so it is interoperable with connected devices and when you decide to use a Type C connector, that spec also gets added to your design requirements. It does not replace the USB 2.0 specification which includes Battery Charging and USB Power Delivery.
BC1.2 requires comparing D- to Vdat-Ref at detection and then there are over and under voltage compliance allowing the PD to disconnect and renegotiate.
Under USB specifications, using a Type C connector you can deliver up to 100W. The Type C Spec is Item 34 in both the USB 2.0 and 3.0 specs. Point is, you don't get to pick and choose only what you want out of the larger spec and ignore the other applicable parts.
If a plethora of 5V/3A USB Type C products start appearing, then Google will have set a new standard. However, the Z5 and Lumia 950XL, both Type C, both are reported to support QC 2.0 which doesn't have a 3A capability. Even QC 3.0 doesn't support a 3A. It has voltage range from 3.6V to 20V in 200mV increments, but tops out at 2A.
Yes I've read the google engineer's reviews. However, he basically says that it's unsafe to plug in those Type-C to Type-A cables if they're uncompliant, as they'll try to pull 3A, which might not be available.
However, what if you have a Type-A charger that DOES support 3A (e.g. the 5 port chargers from Tronsmart, Aukey, Anker - these support 8-10A or so over all ports, and can do 3A on one port), and you pair it with one of those incompatible cables?
I'm thinking it might be able to do 3A output safely? Ofcourse you would have be careful not to plug that cable into other incompatible usb adapters.
Has anyone tried something similar? If so, what cables are working for you?
lellouchftw said:
Yes I've read the google engineer's reviews. However, he basically says that it's unsafe to plug in those Type-C to Type-A cables if they're uncompliant, as they'll try to pull 3A, which might not be available.
However, what if you have a Type-A charger that DOES support 3A (e.g. the 5 port chargers from Tronsmart, Aukey, Anker - these support 8-10A or so over all ports, and can do 3A on one port), and you pair it with one of those incompatible cables?
I'm thinking it might be able to do 3A output safely? Ofcourse you would have be careful not to plug that cable into other incompatible usb adapters.
Has anyone tried something similar? If so, what cables are working for you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are pulling 3A from a Type-A port, something has gone wrong. Please see http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=63732463&postcount=228. Type-A will only supply, at most, 2.4A. If you have a charger that has a *RATED* output of 3A or more, chances are the charger has more than one Type-A port and supplies 1.5A per port, or more, depending on the charger. For example, some dual port chargers are *rated* to output 4.8A - or 2.4A per port.
In the USB battery charging spec 1.2, the port is rated for up to 5A : http://composter.com.ua/documents/BC1.2_FINAL.pdf (p44).
If a cable identifies itself as 3A, and a charger can safely supply 5V/3A, then shouldn't the 6P be able to charge at full speed without any issues?
lellouchftw said:
In the USB battery charging spec 1.2, the port is rated for up to 5A : http://composter.com.ua/documents/BC1.2_FINAL.pdf (p44).
If a cable identifies itself as 3A, and a charger can safely supply 5V/3A, then shouldn't the 6P be able to charge at full speed without any issues?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Examine section 4.6.1. Also, table 5.2 for the "Allowed PD current draw".
I think many charger brands such as anker, tronsmart, aukey will release their 3A chargers in near future. I have checked the reviews of Benson. Seems there is not any charger can offer 3A.
I have not personally got 3A to the 6P from a Type A connection because I do not as yet have a Type A charger capable of outputting 3A. When I do, I will check it with both the Google supplied cable and a "faulty" cable to check. Most I've seen is a little over 1900mA from a 2A charger.
While there are various USB specifications for power, the correct answer to the question "How much current can be sent over a Type A to Type C connection?" is that amount at which the physical hardware experiences failure. People get totally confused between a paper specification and what is actually possible in the real world!
This in no way considers what the 6P on the C end or the Charger on the A end will actually do. If the 6P knows it is plugged into a legacy port (non-Type C), it might artificially limit the current draw. I suspect (but do not know) that this is what the "faulty" cables are trying to avoid. But, remember, most of the A to Micro B charging scenarios that we see in general practice today were at their origin out of specification when they were introduced. Products have been overcharging USB ports forever.
I have been using a type A to mini B cable with one of those little type C adapters for almost a week now hooked up to my hootoo usb 3.0 hub. It will not give you rapid charging obviously but it's perfectly safe and gives you the standard middle speed charging.
I use it at the office where I am not in a hurry to get the fastest charge possible so it's totally adequate for that and was way cheaper than buying a whole new A to C cable and I can still charge my nexus 4 and bluetooth headphones by removing the little type c adapter. Data transfer speeds seem to be right in line with typical 2.0 usb speeds.
Disclaimer: I'm not an electrical engineer, and don't claim to have read all of the USB specification documentation. I can't guarantee the accuracy of what I say.
USB type A will not and never will support 3 amps. This would require increasing the diameter (gauge) of the wires and possibly the pin design. USB type C was designed from the ground up with wire gauge and pin design capable of higher amperage (up to 5 amps I think). When you have a cable with a type A end and a type C end, it has to go with the lowest common denominator for the amperage, the type A end. The cable must identify itself to the USB C device by using the proper resistor, so the USB C device doesn't attempt to draw more amps than USB A can handle.
The way Qualcomm QuickCharge gets around this using USB type A is by increasing the voltage, not the amps. Remember, Electrical Potential (Volts) * Current (Amps) = Power (Watts). Increasing amperage requires a larger gauge wire, but generally speaking, this is not so with a voltage increase. QuickCharge increases the voltage to 9 or 12 volts, therefore increasing the power to the device without increasing the amperage. This is a proprietary Qualcomm specification.
The only way you will get 3 amp charging with a USB C device like the new Nexus phones is by using a USB C charger and USB C to USB C cable. With a USB A charger and a USB A to USB C cable, the max you should see is 2.0 amps. If you are getting more, something is wrong and you have a cable and/or charger that isn't following specification and you could risk damage and/or fire.
I recently got 2-2 packs of these USB-C to Micro USB Adapter, TechMatte®. I have one in each car and in my electronics survival pack so I can charge wherever I might go. I think I might order a USB C to Micro B cable to test a C to B to B to C line from the original Google charger just to see what it does.
dwswager said:
I recently got 2-2 packs of these USB-C to Micro USB Adapter, TechMatte®. I have one in each car and in my electronics survival pack so I can charge wherever I might go. I think I might order a USB C to Micro B cable to test a C to B to B to C line from the original Google charger just to see what it does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are taking a big risk if you use those. See here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BM6N...&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=541966&store=pc
Just gonna slide in here and say that one of the USB 3.1 power configurations is at 3A (for type A) but the circumstances for that power profile are 1. rarely used and 2. not conducive to charging the N6P.
Just get a decent USB A charger and USB A to C cable per what is to spec (see other threads) and live with that charge rate. If you want faster charging then just buy more usb c chargers and C to C cables.
dwswager said:
I recently got 2-2 packs of these USB-C to Micro USB Adapter, TechMatte®. I have one in each car and in my electronics survival pack so I can charge wherever I might go. I think I might order a USB C to Micro B cable to test a C to B to B to C line from the original Google charger just to see what it does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bought these too, before I got the phone, after reading the Google dev reviews, I threw them away, a little cheap convenience isn't worth possibly nuking my phone.
rmkilc said:
Disclaimer: I'm not an electrical engineer, and don't claim to have read all of the USB specification documentation. I can't guarantee the accuracy of what I say.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not an engineer, but I have read both the USB Battery Charging Spec and the USB 3.1 Spec which includes the specification around Type-C plugs at great length and have a decent working knowlege of how consumer electronics work.
The battery charging spec (which is different from Power Delivery) discusses several scenarios, one of which is called DCP or dedicated charging port. This is the part of the spec that people seem to ignore and keep misquoting the power delivery figures that are only relevant when connected to a data source. DCP is applicable when talking about wall and car chargers, because it specifically designed for the scenario where no data transfer will ever take place. It allows for up to 5A to be delivered, regardless of the port type on either end of the cable. This can be seen on page 54 of the first link. This is the part of the spec that people have been using to build chargers for phones and tablets for the last 3 years.
The issue that has been discussed by the Google engineer doesn't mean that a type-A port can't handle 3A, to the contrary it actually proves it can. The issue described by the engineer is what the USB spec tries to cover and prevent. If you read the 3.1 spec, specifically the section on Type-C to legacy connector, it describes a scenario that means the cable should incorporate a resistor that limits the current draw to 1.5A. This is to prevent damage to legacy chargers and doesn't reflect on the capability of the cable/port.
Consider the scenario before the 6P and 5x; no phone or tablet drew more than 2.4A maximum. The way a wall charger works is it simply provides power from the socket, the device on the other end of the cable decides how much current / voltage it can draw. Considering no device could draw more than 2.4A, the chargers didn't have to cope with that scenario. The issue that USB 3.1 provides a scenario that means it can draw more than 2.4A and if your charger is incorrectly built and your cable doesn't identify itself as legacy, it could potentially draw more current that the charger is rated for. There are 3 outcomes to using an out of spec cable on a legacy charger:
The charger is well built, resists the extra current and supplies a lower current, probably 2.0A or 2.4A depending on the charger
The charger isn't smart, but has high quality parts that can safely provide the extra 0.6A and operates at full capacity
The charger fails to limit the current and has cheap components
The third result is bad, very bad indeed, but it is the minority scenario. Best case in this scenario, the charger dies and stops working. The worst case in this scenario is that the charger could actually burst into flames. This is why the USB IF have decided that for legacy implementations, the old ports (Type A and B) should be limited, even if the phone and the cable is capable of providing the current.
What we have been seeing is that people have been ignoring the spec and building cables that pull the full 3A. In the majority of cases, most chargers react by fulfilling item 1 on my list; they correctly provide the max current they are rated for, and you get slightly slower charging at 2.4A. The reason they have done this is so that when they build chargers with Type-A ports that can provide 3A/5V, their cables will work fine at the full speed, and the vast majority of chargers will behave correctly when one of these out of spec cables is plugged in and lower the current draw. Several manufactures have stated they are working on 3A/5V chargers with Type-A ports.
The USB IF have aired on the side of caution, and said that to comply with the spec type-A to type-C shouldn't provide high current despite being able to handle it, because of legacy issues. This is also done to drive the adoption of type-C forward, which is correct behavior for a standards body. This doesn't mean everyone has to build to the spec, they are guidelines, and people have been ignoring them for years.
Are these cables / chargers out of spec? Yes, they are, but 90% of the chargers that come with your phone in the last 3 years are. The specs have never really kept up with the battery charging needs of our devices and the USB IF are very slow to react. With the new PD spec allowing for up to 100W, everyone should be able to have spec compliant chargers and needs met for the foreseeable future. In the next 3 - 5 years however while Type-C gains traction, we will still be using out of spec chargers while everyone plays catch-up.
Hope this helps clear up any confusion.
Big Cam said:
I bought these too, before I got the phone, after reading the Google dev reviews, I threw them away, a little cheap convenience isn't worth possibly nuking my phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are being used successfully, without damage, by numerous people with the 6P and 5X, including me. Look in the reviews and you will find 5-star reviews with pictures of people using them with the 6P.
The "out of spec" part is intended to signal to the device not to draw more than 1.5A. Both the device and the charging port will successfully manage current draws, however. The spec is there to protect what you might call "legacy-legacy" stuff before resettable overcurrent protection was required and the devices had no intelligence.
---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------
vido.ardes said:
Are these cables / chargers out of spec? Yes, they are, but 90% of the chargers that come with your phone in the last 3 years are. The specs have never really kept up with the battery charging needs of our devices and the USB IF are very slow to react. With the new PD spec allowing for up to 100W, everyone should be able to have spec compliant chargers and needs met for the foreseeable future. In the next 3 - 5 years however while Type-C gains traction, we will still be using out of spec chargers while everyone plays catch-up.
Hope this helps clear up any confusion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am an Engineer (work on a DoD cyber campus) reviewing critical components. And you hit the nail on the head. If 5V/3A catches on as a device design parameter, then it won't take long for companies to figure out how to supply 5V/3A via a Type A charger. Just like chargers for QC 2.0 distinguish between regular and QC compliant devices, these chargers will manage current flow with the portable device. These 'hacks' have been very positive for USB adoption because they force the collection of companies that make up the forum to react, since they are not proactive.
I just don't see 5V/3A catching on for Portable Devices. It is too much current for anything, but battery charging. And just dumping more current (faster charging in general) is not usually healthy for the battery because the chemistries don't react well to the higher induced temperatures. Peripheral items, thinking spinning platter hard drives and disc writers, maybe.
Yes. Using the Ampere app on my 6P, I have seen 3A using the following charger and cable. I got 3060ma on one port and about 2800ma on the others.
(Amazon links):
Anker 36W 4-Port USB Wall Charger Travel Adapter with PowerIQ
USB 3.1 Type C,NewLobo(TM) 1Pack 3.3ft/1m Reversible Design Hi-speed Micro USB 3.1 Type C Male to Standard Type A USB 3.0 Male Data Cable
I get about 2600ma on this charger:
Anker 5-Port Desktop Usb Charger with PowerIQ
These chargers are rated for 2.4 amps per port and the cable is not spec-compliant so use at your own risk. I have not had any problems or apparent overheating.
vido.ardes said:
I'm not an engineer, but I have read both the USB Battery Charging Spec and the USB 3.1 Spec which includes the specification around Type-C plugs at great length and have a decent working knowlege of how consumer electronics work.
The battery charging spec (which is different from Power Delivery) discusses several scenarios, one of which is called DCP or dedicated charging port. This is the part of the spec that people seem to ignore and keep misquoting the power delivery figures that are only relevant when connected to a data source. DCP is applicable when talking about wall and car chargers, because it specifically designed for the scenario where no data transfer will ever take place. It allows for up to 5A to be delivered, regardless of the port type on either end of the cable. This can be seen on page 54 of the first link. This is the part of the spec that people have been using to build chargers for phones and tablets for the last 3 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is incorrect. The document you are referring to is a Compliance document used for testing and submitting devices to the USB IF devices for certification. The actual specifications are located here: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/devclass_docs/BCv1.2_070312.zip
In the BC1.2_Final.pdf document contained in that zip, it clearly defines the parameter values for charging. See Table 5-2 for allowable currents. (Also, keep in mind, in this document PD = Portable Device, not power delivery.) It defines that a portable device shall not draw beyond 1.5A.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
In one of his posts, the Google engineer stated that BC2.1 only allows for 1.5A of current draw, but it was other proprietary protocols which allow for more current to be negotiated for and drawn. That's the big question for me - if BC2.1 is being used per Type-C specifications on Type-A ports, what protocols are actually being used when drawing more than 1.5A? That's the big missing link here. Because the phone clearly draws more than 1.5A when connected to QC and other dedicated charging ports. Without that information, we can examine USB specifications all day long and never get the correct answer.
vido.ardes said:
The issue that has been discussed by the Google engineer doesn't mean that a type-A port can't handle 3A, to the contrary it actually proves it can. The issue described by the engineer is what the USB spec tries to cover and prevent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't follow your reasoning here. You state that type-A port specifications limiting current to amounts less than 3A proves they can handle currents up to 3A? You then state that the specs try to prevent exactly that from happening. It's a confusing statement.
vido.ardes said:
If you read the 3.1 spec, specifically the section on Type-C to legacy connector, it describes a scenario that means the cable should incorporate a resistor that limits the current draw to 1.5A. This is to prevent damage to legacy chargers and doesn't reflect on the capability of the cable/port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For clarification, no where in the 3.1 specs does it cover Type-C specifications. The Type-C specs cover Type-C and 3.1 specs. Further, the pullup resistor on the CC line is there to signal to Type-C devices what type of cable termination is on the other end. Nowhere have I found that this is designed to prevent damage to legacy chargers, as charging current isn't flowing over the CC line in on a legacy connection. Charging current is transferred over the VBUS wire(s).
vido.ardes said:
Consider the scenario before the 6P and 5x; no phone or tablet drew more than 2.4A maximum. The way a wall charger works is it simply provides power from the socket, the device on the other end of the cable decides how much current / voltage it can draw. Considering no device could draw more than 2.4A, the chargers didn't have to cope with that scenario. The issue that USB 3.1 Type-C provides a scenario that means it can draw more than 2.4A and if your charger cable is incorrectly built and your cable doesn't identify itself as legacy, it your phone could potentially draw more current that the charger is rated for. There are 3 outcomes to using an out of spec cable on a legacy charger:
The charger is well built, resists the extra current and supplies a lower current, probably 2.0A or 2.4A depending on the charger
The charger isn't smart, but has high quality parts that can safely provide the extra 0.6A and operates at full capacity
The charger fails to limit the current and has cheap components
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fixed a few things. You're confusing 3.1 for Type-C - or perhaps typing 3.1 when you meant type-c. I agree though that the charger's job is to sit there as a power supply, the device pulls current from it. BC2.1 is there to allow negotiation of current beyond the 500mA/900mA provided by base USB specs. The BC2.1 spec does show that currents drawn above max are supposed to initiate a shutdown, but I've yet to see this happen on certified USB type-a chargers, Type-C cables, and devices. Again, this leads me to believe that while BC2.1 spec is being used for negotiation of current, the negotiations are leading to current draws outside of the BC2.1 specifications - probably using proprietary protocols or specs.
vido.ardes said:
The third result is bad, very bad indeed, but it is the minority scenario. Best case in this scenario, the charger dies and stops working. The worst case in this scenario is that the charger could actually burst into flames. This is why the USB IF have decided that for legacy implementations, the old ports (Type A and B) should be limited, even if the phone and the cable is capable of providing the current.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is also that Type-C is much more intelligent when negotiating current between Type-C devices. These new methods (CC/VConn in Type-C), from a physical wiring perspective alone, are completely incompatible with legacy ports. When it can't use a CC wire negotiation, it has to fall back to methods that are compatible with these ports such as BC2.1 or legacy 500mA/900mA charging methods.
vido.ardes said:
What we have been seeing is that people have been ignoring the spec and building cables that pull the full 3A. In the majority of cases, most chargers react by fulfilling item 1 on my list; they correctly provide the max current they are rated for, and you get slightly slower charging at 2.4A.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct, but I have a slight issue with chargers fulfilling item 1 on your list. Protection mechanisms to prevent over-current or over-voltage situations aren't typically meant to be used 100% of the time the device is in use. It's like a "break glass in case of emergency" situation. I don't want to have to break that glass every time I'm plugging in. You can't un-break the glass. Or, if you rather, I'd prefer not to turn on my kitchen lights, then go outside and flip the tripped breaker, just to keep the light every time I want to cook dinner. Not only would that be annoying, but it indicates something is *wrong*. I don't want wrong, I want right.
If this amount of risk is acceptable to you, then by all means... continue. I don't, and won't.
It seems we both want to ensure people know what the risk is here so that they can at least make an informed decision - Which is cool, I dig it. We just disagree on the little details.
Also, I wanted to clarify: I'm not trying to state that it is unsafe to draw 3A of current from a port designed to provide 3+A, just that it is unsafe to draw 3A from a 2.4A rated port. As you said, typical legacy charging devices were not built to deliver more than 2.4A per port, so the risk is very prevalent with chargers users already own.
Further, I can't at all imagine why a manufacturer would actually design a Type-A / 3A capable port for these devices when using the existing Type-C port would be simpler and future proof.
I think these concerns about cables pulling 3A may be overblown in particular with cheap cables that cheat with the resistor. In order to carry that current you need some good thick wires inside. I've seen high quality OEM cables before that could barely carry 600mA when the phone could pull 1.2A and the charger at the other end was rated up to 2.4A.
I think in order to be concerned you need a cable that uses thick wires, well built and that cheats with the resistor. It doesn't seem to be easy to make cables that can actually carry 3A.
I have a non-compliant Pleson cable. I'm waiting for my 6P's battery to get down to 35% and I will test it with various wall chargers, a car charger and computer ports. I have a USB dongle to measure the current and I will also use the Ampere app. I'll report back.
Sorry But I have to disagree on pretty much all of your points here.
Elnrik said:
This is incorrect. The document you are referring to is a Compliance document used for testing and submitting devices to the USB IF devices for certification. The actual specifications are located here: http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/devclass_docs/BCv1.2_070312.zip
In the BC1.2_Final.pdf document contained in that zip, it clearly defines the parameter values for charging. See Table 5-2 for allowable currents. (Also, keep in mind, in this document PD = Portable Device, not power delivery.) It defines that a portable device shall not draw beyond 1.5A.
View attachment 3537633
View attachment 3537640
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The link I supplied is the current Battery Charging specification, and has the same information as the doc you linked. If you read the table in the picture you posted the third row clearly shows Dedicated Charging Port can have a max of 5A. This is how people can use that spec to draw more than 1.5A.
Elnrik said:
I don't follow your reasoning here. You state that type-A port specifications limiting current to amounts less than 3A proves they can handle currents up to 3A? You then state that the specs try to prevent exactly that from happening. It's a confusing statement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point is that the specification are designed to artificially limit type-A ports to a lower current when used with a type-C cable. The port itself has no such limitation without deliberately downgrading what it can draw by adding an extra resistor, and the cables that flaunt the spec prove that they can handle 3A fine.
Elnrik said:
For clarification, no where in the 3.1 specs does it cover Type-C specifications. The Type-C specs cover Type-C and 3.1 specs. Further, the pullup resistor on the CC line is there to signal to Type-C devices what type of cable termination is on the other end. Nowhere have I found that this is designed to prevent damage to legacy chargers, as charging current isn't flowing over the CC line in on a legacy connection. Charging current is transferred over the VBUS wire(s).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not true, The current USB specification (found by going to USB.org, clicking developers in the top row, then clicking documents) is the "Universal Serial Bus Revision 3.1 Specification". Amongst other things, this contains the "USB Type-C Cable and Connector Specification Revision 1.1" and the "USB Type-C Port Controller Interface Spec". The pull up resistor is designed to limit legacy cables to default USB power (see table 4-13, page 157)
Elnrik said:
Fixed a few things. You're confusing 3.1 for Type-C - or perhaps typing 3.1 when you meant type-c. I agree though that the charger's job is to sit there as a power supply, the device pulls current from it. BC2.1 is there to allow negotiation of current beyond the 500mA/900mA provided by base USB specs. The BC2.1 spec does show that currents drawn above max are supposed to initiate a shutdown, but I've yet to see this happen on certified USB type-a chargers, Type-C cables, and devices. Again, this leads me to believe that while BC2.1 spec is being used for negotiation of current, the negotiations are leading to current draws outside of the BC2.1 specifications - probably using proprietary protocols or specs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I did mean type-C, but your edit from charger to cable is misleading. My point there was that regardless of what cable you plug into it, a properly built charger should regulate it's own current and power draw, most transformers will limit what they can provide despite what is being asked of them, which is why a 1A charger will only provide 1A despite me plugging in a dumb cable and a device that can pull 2.4A. A crap charger however will not, and this will be a problem with ALL cables and not just Type-C 3A ones.
Elnrik said:
Correct, but I have a slight issue with chargers fulfilling item 1 on your list. Protection mechanisms to prevent over-current or over-voltage situations aren't typically meant to be used 100% of the time the device is in use. It's like a "break glass in case of emergency" situation. I don't want to have to break that glass every time I'm plugging in. You can't un-break the glass. Or, if you rather, I'd prefer not to turn on my kitchen lights, then go outside and flip the tripped breaker, just to keep the light every time I want to cook dinner. Not only would that be annoying, but it indicates something is *wrong*. I don't want wrong, I want right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As with above, I'm not talking about overvoltage or overcurrent protection, the chargers that are built properly won't need to apply these mechanisms because they won't provide over-current in the first place. Think of it like when you plug your phone into a car charger, and run the GPS. A lot of the time, your battery will still drain because the charger can't provide enough power, despite the fact that if you plugged it into a higher rated charger it would. The charger itself should be smart enough to limit the current without tripping any protection mechanism, and I would expect the majority of chargers on the market to behave in this manner, otherwise we would of had reports of people burning their house down by plugging iPads into 1A chargers.
The clearest point I can make on this is from the USB Type-C spec, page 25/24 Table3-1 & Table 3-2. It states cable types and expected current ratings. There is also the below quote when talking about building a legacy cable, lifted directly from the spec:
The following describes the behavior when a legacy host adapter that has an Rp to VBUS so as to mimic the behavior of a DFP is connected to a DRP. The value of Rp shall indicate an advertisement of Default USB Power (See Table 4-13), even though the cable itself can carry 3 A. This is because the cable has no knowledge of the capabilities of the power source, and any higher current is negotiated via USB BC 1.2 or by proprietary means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Emphasis is mine, DFP is Downstream Facing Port (the charger), UFP is Upstream Facing port (the phone). The spec clearly states the current is to be limited to default USB power (which for the uninitiated is 5V up to 1.5A) despite being capable of 3A. It also gives you and out and says you can negotiate higher power using USB BC1.2 or a proprietary method of signalling higher currents, which is what phone and table manufactures have been doing for years.
EDIT: I just want to clarify my point. There seems to be this idea that Type-A connectors are somehow incapable of supplying 3A/5V, and that is what I am trying to correct. I have seen it here, Reddit, Android Central, and it is simply false. At the end of the day the plug, socket and wire are all able to carry 3A of current. I believe the issue the Google engineer has described, whilst real, has been blown out of all proportion, and in the real world the vast majority of these Type-A to Type-C cables are fine, and will provide fast charging when someone comes out with a compatible charger. The thing a lot of people are forgetting or not realising is that pretty much every phone made in the last 3 years isn't "in spec" either. The manufacturers have all come up with proprietary standards for drawing more current, and these latest cables are just a continuation of that process.
I think this is a perfect example where a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
vido.ardes said:
Sorry But I have to disagree on pretty much all of your points here.
The link I supplied is the current Battery Charging specification, and has the same information as the doc you linked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really hate to pick nits here, but... No, it isn't. Document you linked:
Document I referenced:
While the two may have similar information, one is going to define the specifications, the other is not. That is an important distinction readers of this thread should be aware of.
vido.ardes said:
If you read the table in the picture you posted the third row clearly shows Dedicated Charging Port can have a max of 5A. This is how people can use that spec to draw more than 1.5A.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. The 3rd row shows what the port should be rated for, not what the specification allows to be drawn. To use the analogy again, it's like the wiring in your house. The wires and plugs are rated for 20A for safety, but specifications define 15A breakers and max draw. (I suppose this is different in the UK, where I have no idea what voodoo or dark magicks make those odd outlets to work. All I know is it's funny to watch US tourists set their hair dryers on fire with them. :silly: ) While I do see your point - that the port is capable of 5A draws - the specification itself doesn't allow for 5A useage.
vido.ardes said:
This is not true, The current USB specification (found by going to USB.org, clicking developers in the top row, then clicking documents) is the "Universal Serial Bus Revision 3.1 Specification". Amongst other things, this contains the "USB Type-C Cable and Connector Specification Revision 1.1" and the "USB Type-C Port Controller Interface Spec". The pull up resistor is designed to limit legacy cables to default USB power (see table 4-13, page 157)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. The usb.org site provides all of the specficiations in a single zip under a download link titled "Universal Serial Bus Revision 3.1 Specification". My point was - if you examine the contained documents, the 3.1 specifications PDF has no specifications relating to type c. You have to specifically view the type c document to get that information.
Also, the "The pull up resistor is designed to limit legacy cables to default USB power (see table 4-13, page 157)" is stated, but reading deeper into this you'll see that this is accomplished by the UFP reading this as an *ADVERTISEMENT* to use Default USB Power for current negotiation. See page 146.
vido.ardes said:
EDIT: I just want to clarify my point. There seems to be this idea that Type-A connectors are somehow incapable of supplying 3A/5V, and that is what I am trying to correct. I have seen it here, Reddit, Android Central, and it is simply false. At the end of the day the plug, socket and wire are all able to carry 3A of current. I believe the issue the Google engineer has described, whilst real, has been blown out of all proportion, and in the real world the vast majority of these Type-A to Type-C cables are fine, and will provide fast charging when someone comes out with a compatible charger. The thing a lot of people are forgetting or not realising is that pretty much every phone made in the last 3 years isn't "in spec" either. The manufacturers have all come up with proprietary standards for drawing more current, and these latest cables are just a continuation of that process.
I think this is a perfect example where a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, it has been blown out of proportion. That said, I believe real world situations exist where manufacturers use ultra-cheap components or don't comply with 3A ratings - because 3A was never needed before - and that some danger exists. I will disagree with the "every phone made in the last 3 years isn't "in spec" either" comment. The phones are "in spec". Yes, they have been supplemented with proprietary methods to augment their capabilities (Qualcomm Quick Charge, as an example). QuickCharge does not negate, override, or invalidate the USB specs - it complies with specs - it just adds an extra feature set. Saying they are not in spec is misleading, something I think we can both agree should be avoided.
Since there is still such a limited amount of phones with QC4+, I wanted to see if anyone had information about the accessory availability and compatibility of products like cables, car adaptors, etc.
After searching around, I can't find a car adaptor or portable charger (power bank) anywhere that is actually approved as QC4+.
Qualcomm's website shows that my QC3 stuff from my other phones/tablet is backward compatible, however, it does not clearly state that "compatible" will be charging at QC4+ speeds. My assumption is no since QC3 had max power around 18W and QC4+ is about 27W.
Can anyone share a little more information in simple terms so I can understand a bit more?
Will my current QC3 cables work without issue?
What is the minimum USB spec required on PC to work?
Will any USB-PD charging products/accessories work on the U12+?
Where (and when) can I find accessories like car adaptors, banks, cables, etc.
Thank you for your help!
There is a HAMA wall and a car charger which is approved and listed on the HAMA homepage. Bit it hasn't been released yet, as I found out. So no equipment yet. That's why HTC still has a QC 3.0 charger in box I guess.
Sent from my HTC U11 using XDA Labs
Why in the world would it ship with a qc3 charger/cable? I am just dumbfounded by this one.
MNoisy said:
Why in the world would it ship with a qc3 charger/cable? I am just dumbfounded by this one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most likely because they already have them in stock? It's already faster than most people upgrade from, at least my U12+ got up to almost full in less than hour.
Here's the QC 4.0 charger I'm considering ordering (want to check first if it's indeed certified before I order it): https://www.amazon.com/Charger-Tenke.../dp/B0789F6FNG
I am guessing that my qc3 cables won't work with qc4 at all then since they have a max of 20v. Frustrating since I just bought a set of cables!
Based on my limited research, it looks like the new PD standard will work with QC4. Androidpit says
"Quick Charge 4 is compatible with Power Delivery, which raises the question of what Quick Charge 4 brings to the table. Power Delivery is already proficient in technologies for negotiating current and voltage. Qualcomm’s Quick Charge 4 can intervene to take control with regard to the device’s so-called thermal budget; in other words: It makes sure that the smartphone does not get too hot when charging. The fact that Quick Charge and PD can co-exist is due to the fact that Power Delivery is solely a protocol for negotiating voltage and current. Quick Charge 4 has simply learned to speak this language, but does the same thing as Quick Charge 3 with a few upgrades. Thus, QC4 is exclusive to Type-C."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If anyone eventually gets there phone and can try a PD3 charger or cables they have around, let us know if it works!
QC4.0 brings faster charging/lower charge time to the table, specifically for Qualcomm SoCs.
PD3.0 only provides more information, as PD3.0 and PD2.0 are exactly the same as far as voltage/cable/etc go:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
szlevi said:
QC4.0 brings faster charging/lower charge time to the table, specifically for Qualcomm SoCs.
PD3.0 only provides more information, as PD3.0 and PD2.0 are exactly the same as far as voltage/cable/etc go:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So PD will work over any USB 3 cable or do they have specific data channels proprietary to the USB cable?
MNoisy said:
I am guessing that my qc3 cables won't work with qc4 at all then since they have a max of 20v. Frustrating since I just bought a set of cables!
Based on my limited research, it looks like the new PD standard will work with QC4. Androidpit says
If anyone eventually gets there phone and can try a PD3 charger or cables they have around, let us know if it works!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have USB-PD at both work and home, so you can bet I'll be giving it a go. I'd much rather use USB-PD chargers that I already have than have to buy specialized chargers and cables for QC3/4.
OGhoul said:
I have USB-PD at both work and home, so you can bet I'll be giving it a go. I'd much rather use USB-PD chargers that I already have than have to buy specialized chargers and cables for QC3/4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awesome, thank you! Are you in on the preorder to test early?
MNoisy said:
Awesome, thank you! Are you in on the preorder to test early?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately no. My ship date is in July, however my order already says Boxes Shippment.
Curious, did the Razer Phone not ship with a Quick Charge 4 adapter? I remember there was controversy over this. I would think that would be an easy solution for finding an AC adapter.
HTC U12 Plus and QC4+...how???!!!
I have the HTC U12 Plus which is supposed to support QC4+. I purchased the Razer wall charger because it is Qualcomm certified and has QC4+ stamped right on the bottom. I didn't know that I needed a USB c to c cable and according to Qualcomm's website it states that any USB c to c cable will work. I purchased the Amazon Basic c to c cable ($3.99) and the Belkin F2CU030bt1M-BLK and I can't notice a difference in speed using either cable vs using the QC3 charger that came in the box. I tried running a 20%-100% test and came up with a nearly identical time. Does anyone have any information on what I might be doing wrong or how I can get this sang QC4+to work?????? Thank you very much.
The cable has to be capable of the high power output as well, otherwise it'll throttle to the mentioned QC 3.0 speeds. May e that's why the potential cable provided by Razer is that expensive as well.
Sent from my HTC U12+ using XDA Labs
My apologies for not returning to this thread sooner. I've been using my Anker USB-PD charger with one of their massively thick, USB-C to USB-C PD-compliant cable, and it is been fantastic. Charging times are quite fast.
USB C Wall Charger, Anker Premium 60W 5-Port Desktop Charger with One 30W Power Delivery Port for Apple MacBook, Nexus 5X/6P, and 4 PowerIQ Ports for iPhone, iPad, and More
Anker PowerLine USB-C to USB-C 3.1 Gen 1 Cable (3ft) with Power Delivery for USB Type-C Devices Including Galaxy S8, S8+, S9, Google Pixel, Nexus 6P, Huawei Matebook, MacBook and More
Anker USB C
So with the aforementioned Anker USB C cable you believe that you're achieving QC4+ speeds? If that's the case, I will purchase it immediately. It annoys me that it clearly states on Qualcomm's website that any USB C to C will work to achieve 4+ charging speeds. Thank you very much for the information!
Here is a list of certified 4+ wall chargers. I can only find the Razer anywhere.
• Ever Win car charger (VP4plus)*
• Ever Win wall charger (TC4Plus)*
• Portway Wall Charger (PTL-27WPDQ4)*
• Razer Phone Power Adapter*
* Supports Quick Charge 4+
B!RD said:
So with the aforementioned Anker USB C cable you believe that you're achieving QC4+ speeds? If that's the case, I will purchase it immediately. It annoys me that it clearly states on Qualcomm's website that any USB C to C will work to achieve 4+ charging speeds. Thank you very much for the information!
Here is a list of certified 4+ wall chargers. I can only find the Razer anywhere.
• Ever Win car charger (VP4plus)*
• Ever Win wall charger (TC4Plus)*
• Portway Wall Charger (PTL-27WPDQ4)*
• Razer Phone Power Adapter*
* Supports Quick Charge 4+
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly have no way of comparing USB-PD speeds to QC4.0. I don't have a QC4.0 charger and at this point, it doesn't make a lot of sense to get one. Other than the handful of Anker QC3.0 chargers that I have to power their Power Wave wireless charging pads, all of my devices (iPhone, iPad, U12+, my gf's Essential, Apple TV remotes...) all use or can use USB-PD.
I can say though that I topped up from 75% to 100% in well under half an hour (while I was showering and getting ready for work this morning).
So the Razer charger is QC4.0 certified? I don't want to sound brand discriminatory (even if I actually am), but the Razer charger would be the only one I'd consider buying, especially given my environment (Apple devices have been very temperamental with sketchy chargers and cables), because I've used Razer products and am familiar with the brand and build quality.
Yes Indeed
Yes it is QC4+ certified on Qualcomm's website. I don't know what to do...keep the Razer or try this TENKER that just arrived.
HTC/Ever Win/Razer
I just literally spent 2 hours on the phone with HTC who confirmed via voice and via online chat that YES the U12+ supports QC4+ however they do not make a charger as we are all well aware of. I the called The Ever Win company who is listed on Qualcomm's website as a certified manufacturer of a QC4+ wall and car charger and the response that I received is that they're not available on the market yet and are undergoing testing. Timetable until public purchase...none. To be quite honest, I am sick and tired of researching this I just want the dang thang to work and charge at QC4+ speeds. I even tried a 100 watt capable USB c to c using the Razer wall charger and nothing...no difference...so I'm stumped at this point because QC4+ runs on 27 watts. Oh, and I also tried that Tenker 60w brick of a charger and nothing. One final note is that I did ask HTC if they have some type of software installed on the U12+ that somehow blocks the QC4+ from working and was emphatically told no...of course I was also told not to use 3rd party accessories..lol. So I don't know what else to do at this point but to give up and wait for more products to hit the market that have the QC4+ stamp right on it like the Razer does...I'm just baffled as to why it won't work. ? I'm also pretty frigging annoyed/pissed at this point.
B!RD said:
I just literally spent 2 hours on the phone with HTC who confirmed via voice and via online chat that YES the U12+ supports QC4+ however they do not make a charger as we are all well aware of. I the called The Ever Win company who is listed on Qualcomm's website as a certified manufacturer of a QC4+ wall and car charger and the response that I received is that they're not available on the market yet and are undergoing testing. Timetable until public purchase...none. To be quite honest, I am sick and tired of researching this I just want the dang thang to work and charge at QC4+ speeds. I even tried a 100 watt capable USB c to c using the Razer wall charger and nothing...no difference...so I'm stumped at this point because QC4+ runs on 27 watts. Oh, and I also tried that Tenker 60w brick of a charger and nothing. One final note is that I did ask HTC if they have some type of software installed on the U12+ that somehow blocks the QC4+ from working and was emphatically told no...of course I was also told not to use 3rd party accessories..lol. So I don't know what else to do at this point but to give up and wait for more products to hit the market that have the QC4+ stamp right on it like the Razer does...I'm just baffled as to why it won't work. I'm also pretty frigging annoyed/pissed at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are the QC4+ speeds supposed to be?
I've looked at Razor's page and it doesn't show anything in the description on the charger.
Amazon has it for sale, and it does have a description on there. This is what it in the description for the speed:
"Our 24 Watt charger with Qualcomm quick charge 4.0+ is designed for Ultra fast charging. Go from zero to fifty percent in just 40 minutes."
Is that inline for what speeds you are getting on the U12+?
B!RD said:
I just literally spent 2 hours on the phone with HTC who confirmed via voice and via online chat that YES the U12+ supports QC4+ however they do not make a charger as we are all well aware of. I the called The Ever Win company who is listed on Qualcomm's website as a certified manufacturer of a QC4+ wall and car charger and the response that I received is that they're not available on the market yet and are undergoing testing. Timetable until public purchase...none. To be quite honest, I am sick and tired of researching this I just want the dang thang to work and charge at QC4+ speeds. I even tried a 100 watt capable USB c to c using the Razer wall charger and nothing...no difference...so I'm stumped at this point because QC4+ runs on 27 watts. Oh, and I also tried that Tenker 60w brick of a charger and nothing. One final note is that I did ask HTC if they have some type of software installed on the U12+ that somehow blocks the QC4+ from working and was emphatically told no...of course I was also told not to use 3rd party accessories..lol. So I don't know what else to do at this point but to give up and wait for more products to hit the market that have the QC4+ stamp right on it like the Razer does...I'm just baffled as to why it won't work. I'm also pretty frigging annoyed/pissed at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This may sound silly, so forgive me. But have you tried the cable that Razer shipped as well?
Otherwise my only advice is to go the USB-PD route.