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.

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.

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.

Was just looking for this

Great vid thanks

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 Moral is Xiaomi didn't do it well, Use anker instead and see the results

what about heat loss?

The future if your looking for a smaller more compact charger otherwise I think the answer is no

When will those gpu and mother board re-branding factory put GaN on their box?

I think the GaN will be more efficient and faster.

Keep moving bro

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

It is better to watch this video at 1.5x speed ... otherwise it will be frustrating 😂

A little difference, but the price is massively different, so I stick to my brand cheaper silicon charger usb c

4:49 What do you mean 3% faster? 2h03m vs 2h09m is at least 4,6% faster. I believe the mistake you made is assuming 100 minutes in an hour and not 60.

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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pbqFjbR11bfHhWg.html

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Wow

Still GaN chargers are better because they are lighter and smaller

People buying GaN chargers from uGreen and Anker thinking they buy the real deal 😂🤣😂 at 15-20$/£

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

I see cat i like

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.

…👍👍👍…

GaN charger is smaller.

Just a gimmick?

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.

It's just a gimmick and marketing strategy 😆 still using my default charger for 5 years now lol

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

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.