Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodesocket | Hacker News Reader

> 140W USB-C Power Adapter

Wait huh? My current 16" Intel Core i9 is only 95watts. Does this mean all my existing USB-C power infrastructure won't work?

View on HN

My guess is it will work like using a 65W adapter on a Mac that prefers 95W. It will charge if you're not doing much but it will drain the battery if you're going full tilt.

Just like USB-C cables can differ in capacity I’m finding a need to scrutinize my wall chargers more now. A bunch of white boxes but some can keep my MacBook Pro charged even when on all day calls and some can’t. With PD the size isn’t a great indicator anymore either.

Maybe its a typo and they mean the Magsafe3 connector? I though the USB-C standard was limited to 100 watts.

They recently introduced a new standard that allows up to 240W

They may have a usbC -> magsafe 3 connector. It lets you just replace the cable when it inevitably breaks instead of the whole brick.

That's exactly what it is.

Instead of having to replace the mag safe power brick for 85€ you can now just replace the cable for 55€.

However, it my personal experience, I've never had the cable fail, but I've had 2 mag safe power supplies fail (they started getting very hot while charging and at some point stopped working alltogether).

Dell USB-C power adapters have exceeded 100 watts in the past on e.g. the XPS 17

No, it would be just be slower to charge

It will work but it will charge slower and probably won't charge when maxing out the juice off the SoC.

I think the 140w power adapter is to support fast charging, they mentioned charging to 50% capacity in 30 mins, I'd imagine power draw should be much less than 140w

Yeah, I don't know the peak power draw when everything's on 100% load, but I think (also thinking the efficiency of M1) 140W would keep charging even under highest load.

It likely charges slower, though they is a minimum needed power - you cannot charge with a mobile charger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com