I'll explain exactly why this is a garbage test as it misses an extremely critical fact, the amount of materials used. The design goal of the charger is not to increase efficiency, it was to decrease the size of a fast charger. Gallium Nitride will move more current with a smaller surface area, as its conducting electricity when you increase current its temperature coefficient will increase the resistance thus creating more heat. In the end, they are limited by the maximum amount of heat they can generate per unit of area, ignoring thermal conductivity the larger the area the more heat can be dissipated. Because of this if you build an equally sized GaN charger it would no longer be a 65 watt charger, it would be say a 130 watt charger & people would complain saying the testing isn't "fair" when it runs more more efficiently than an 65 watt silicon charger despite using the same amount of materials. So yes Gallium Nitride is MUCH more efficient than silicone which is exactly why the charger can be 1/3rd the size without causing a house fire. Its sad you came to this result because the rest of your video was pretty well made but I understand how it would be easy to make a mistake like this as manufactures are only advertising the maximum rated current & given that you wanted to see which of 2 "equal" chargers would be more efficient. Also in regards to the cable, you should be using the same cable for each test, differences in manufacturing could skew the results, if one cable uses thicker wires, then it would appear more efficient. The best would be buying a USB standards compliant third party charger that is super short to minimize the impact of the cable in the measurement results, but even so the test would still be flawed anyways as this isn't an effective way of measuring material properties, but a perfectly fine way to measure a specific products efficiency.
Thanks, after you mentioned it, I compared my two chargers physical size(one is GaN, one regular) and the GaN definitely is smaller even though they're the same wattage. Very interesting
It should be noted many of the chargers advertised as GaN chargers do not actually use GaN FETs, they are being falsely advertised - the only way to know for sure is to disassemble the charger and look at the components - which isn't ideal.
Primarily, the GaN application for mobile device chargers offers size & higher power benefits as compared to Si-based components. And the negligible difference in charge time in this comparison makes the GaN-based device a preferred choice. GaN higher electron mobility & higher power than Silicon makes GaN the Future choice for high-frequency devices and mid power 600v-1Kv.
More accurate test would be to load up both chargers with dummy loads on both 5V and 9V lines and watch consumption on 110V line with actual ampere meter.
The one with the larger voltage sir. The powerbrick can get as hot as it can but the heat that the phone will receive is from the electricity transfered within the cable
I think GAN is more of a marketing gimmick due to less difference of efficiency compared with silicon. Furthermore, a cable which may have 3A or 5A is also another confusing factor to add in conclusion. The way technology in chargers is approaching towards future, we would always be pushed towards buying things which have less impact of efficiency
If you do not understand how GaN beats Silicone chargers in efficiency watch this and you will better understand. Also the cable, charger and device used makes a huge difference ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oTUZQDpQcU4.html
Yeeesssss bro, this video that you linked is great!, I've seen it before... See how you got people all over the globe comparing GaN and Silicone, but when this guy actually opened the product, FFS... there wasn't even a GaN FET inside!! hahaha. Those manufacturers in the Far East are literally Laughing Out Loud for sure, when people buy these GaN 'labeled' products all over the world...
@@TabalugaDragon I'm talking about GaN chargers. It's explained in the video the difference between GaN and Silicon chargers and how much more efficient and cooler GaN is. It's also much better on the environment, less pollution, less plastic and waste, faster charging at cooler temperatures. Just no reason to keep Silicon chargers in 2022. You most likely gotta pay $30 for a 30-45w GaN or $60+ for a 45-80w GaN charger
@@Bulletz4Breakfast13 yes but there was no actual GaN in that video and therefore no actual comparison. The comparison the guy in this video did(the one we're posting comments under) where he actually compared power drained from the wall is excellent, but I wish he used something else, like a uGreen charger. I read that GaN wastes only half power as heat compared to silicon chargers, therefore, by all logic, it should consume less power from the wall. "Just no reason to keep Silicon chargers in 2022." which is why I ordrered a uGreen GaN x 65w charger 2 weeks ago, it's an amazing tech. But still, I want to see real efficiency comparisons, because aside from this one in the video, there were none. And I don't have my own wattmeter to do a comparison myself.
They are definitely more efficient and his tests in this video doesn't test properly! Watch this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oTUZQDpQcU4.html
Why do technical producers print „65w“ on their packages or products, even though, they know, that it is being written correctly as „65 W“? It is called Watt, and not watt or watts or anything else. Just Watt.
Yeah, a bit on the "spectrum" here. I'm sure you're one of those insane "Alt Far Leftys" who insist on telling everyone, everyday what pronouns they must be called. It's obvious here the extent of knowledge you have. It can be used with an "s" when talking/writing about more than one. It's funny how those who have a background in science only really understand one extremely tiny, usually irrelevant, thing. Anything else, they are absolutely clueless. Stick to science and not the English language. 👍🏻👍🏻
Why do you write quotation marks like „65W" when it is proper to write them like this: "65W"? As long as you know the power output of the charger, isn't that good enough.
Haha. You bought a fake GaN charger. My original GaN charger really charge faster than silicon. You were just fooled. And yes, GaN charger is the future. It is rampant now than the you tested it and made this video.
I use a perfectly good 65W ANKER PD Adapter. With current battery technology, i am not a believer in fast charging. I won't spend my own money to "upgrade" to a GaN adapter unless my Silicon fails.
in 2020 people were posting articles saying we would be wanting GAN chargers and up until now in 2022, there have not been any consumer test of it's effectiveness except this video that debunks the efficiency of GEN chargers. So this is proof that GAN chargers are not infact more efficient than silicon chargers. The other thing to note is also that the only difference in GAN charger and silicon charger is that small IC chip that supposedly is going to make it more efficient which cmon, lets be real, that will never happen. so seems like GAN chargers are considered snake oil at the moment
A true 100% GaNfet charger will use less total wattage to produce desired output wattage. This is because the charger does not waste nearly as much energy as heat and can sustain higher outputs for longer (again due to the affect of heat). Do not be so quick to dispute. You need to pay at least $50 to get a a real GaN charger, not just one using GaN as a marketing term.
