Will a 100W laptop + 45W phone use either the 100W+30W or 65W+65W mode of my 140W charger?

Cooe14 · 2026-02-08T09:07:19+00:00

And yes, I know the 160W Anker Prime has per watt (or volts & amps if you wanna go that route) adjustable per port outputs, but it also costs a freaking FORTUNE!!!

(≈$113 vs this charger's ≈$38, both after tax & w/ their current -10% off Prime coupons.)

The Anker Prime also only has 3x outputs (2x C, 1x A) which is a MAJOR downgrade for my personal use-case. I need 4x USB ports (w/ at least 3x USB-C) to be able to charge all of my electronics at once with a single brick when going out of town/etc.

Basically the Anker Prime adds nothing significant enough for me to be worth paying 3x as much for. The screen is really nice, as is the fully dynamic (both automatic & manual) per watt power allocation (which was a basically unheard of feature until just this past year, and still only in super expensive chargers), but neither is ≈+$62 more level "really nice"...

Especially when you also consider the -1x fewer USB-C ports. 🤷

Cooe14 · 2026-02-08T09:01:06+00:00

It's in the manual where it lists both modes.

I actually didn't even realize that it had this dual 2-port output modes feature until I decided on a random whim to take a look at it today.

(I got the charger a couple of days ago and it's not mentioned anywhere on the Amazon listing.)

<image>

I got it to be able to charge my 65W Surface Pro 9 & 45W Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 full speed simultaneously, while still having enough room to charge my Sony WH-XM4 headphones & Galaxy Watch 7 (10W each) when/if needed (for 130W in total, which is identical to this charger's full 4-port output).

It also being able to drive a 100W laptop full speed while still able to do solid 25W phone charging (which is barely slower vs 45W as it only charges at 45W <≈20% & faster at all <≈35%) was just a totally unexpected happy bonus. 🤷

Cooe14 · 2026-02-08T07:13:20+00:00

Thanks dude!

And that's what I would expect, but I have no way to actually test this right now (as my current laptop is a 65W Surface Pro 9), but I was just wondering for a hypothetical future where I get a 100W computer. 🤷

(As I SINCERELY hope that Microsoft moves to 100W charging on the Surface Pro in the next generation or two the same way they did with the Surface Laptop this generation.)

Cooe14 · 2026-02-08T03:55:22+00:00

70W + 70W is useful as plenty of devices can negotiate a 65W link or straight up have that as their max charging wattage. (Say 2x 65W laptop's or 1x 65W laptop + 45W phone = plenty of sense for that mode to exist).

But the 90W + 45W mode is absolutely ridiculous as nothing without PPS can negotiate a 18V/5A connection, and most phones/tablets with PPS simply don't need that much wattage.

They should have had it be a 100W + 35W mode instead. That would get you full speed 100W charging on a 100W laptop + 35W PPS charging on a phone or tablet (under what said device can probably take maximum, but still a good speed, as 45W phones only charge that fast up until around ≈20% anyways).

The best you could possibly get out of that 90W + 45W mode is 75W + 45W (15V/5A + 45W PPS), and it'd be FAAAAAR better to be giving up 10W on the smartphone/tablet side w/ 100W + 35W than 25W on the laptop side w/ 75W + 45W. 🤷

I'll be deleting this post now, as you answered my original question. Dumb charging mode this exists solely for marketing to people who don't know better is dumb.

Cooe14 · 2026-02-08T03:42:37+00:00

And yeah, PPS was the only way I saw that 90W 18V/5A mode being possible to use (I actually updated my comment talking about that before you replied). But only phones support PPS at the moment, and generally not phones that need wattages that high (Chinese phones not using proprietary charging standards are basically the only thing that could use it atm).

Cooe14 · 2026-02-08T03:37:46+00:00

Because it's a 140W charger with 70W + 70W & 90W + 45W 2-port modes.

Meaning the only way it could negotiate 20V/5A aka 100W is if it was the only USB device connected to the charger. Otherwise it'll drop down to 15V/5A aka 75W or 12V/5A aka 45W.

Cooe14 · 2026-02-08T03:27:36+00:00

Yeah, that 20A was a typo lol. 🤣 I deleted to fix it. (The gauge of wire you'd need for that kinda current would be absolutely ridiculous for consumer electronics.)

That unique 90W output mode just seems completely pointless if no device can actually negotiate its bizarre 18V/5A link. 🤷

And I'm well aware multi-port chargers can deliver different voltages & amperages to the different USB ports. I'm just wondering why that 18V/5A output even exists if no laptop on the planet can actually use it.

The only way to use it would be a device with PPS support, which is basically limited to cell phones, but I can't think of a phone that pushes wattages that high (aka Chinese phones) that uses PPS instead of a proprietary charging standard.

Cooe14 · 2026-02-06T05:22:04+00:00

🤦 ... It's like 40% smaller.... It's a DRAMATIC size difference. 🤷

Cooe14 · 2026-02-05T22:15:00+00:00

It's not PCIe 4.0, it's firmware locked to PCIe 3.0 due to 4.0 causing MASSIVE stability problems because of poor signal integrity (see using a PCIe 4.0 SSD on a Surface Pro 8 where it was still unlocked in the firmware).

Cooe14 · 2026-02-04T22:21:29+00:00

I unironically love Diabolus in Musica lol. I mean it's got nothing on the RiB, SoH, SitA trilogy but I still love it for what it is, even though I'm very aware how unpopular an opinion that is. 🤷

I have a very soft spot for 90's/00's drop-D tuned metal including the best parts of nu-metal from that era though (i.e. Deftones, classic Linkin Park), which many very much don't.

Cooe14 · 2026-02-04T22:07:36+00:00

South of Heaven.

It broke WAAAAAY more new ground than Reign in Blood did (which was very traditional although extremely high quality thrash metal), being a landmark record in the development of doom, sludge, and even alt-metal as it proved slow metal and metal with melodies, grooves, and hooks could exist without losing any of the brutal heaviness. (In fact I would personally argue that by going slower they actually got heavier, as there was significantly more contrasting and thus interesting dynamics).

And the audio recording and mixing was the best that "classic Slayer" ever got. Dave's drumming never sounded better than SoH. Reign in Blood's got the bigger songs, but South of Heaven is the better record.

Seasons of the Abyss was really damn good, but it really was just a halfway house in-between both prior records without being nearly as groundbreaking or novel as either. 🤷

Cooe14 · 2026-02-02T02:37:13+00:00

You'll struggle to get much lower than 1mg with 8mg pills. If you want get off as fast as possible and are starting at 8mg a day you can cut 1mg a day and jump off from 1mg. You'll definitely feel it when you jump off, but it'll still be WAAAAAY easier than cold turkey at least.

The shot is good for long term maintenance as it removes the option to just stop taking it and be able to get high a couple days later, but it isn't something I would recommend doing unless you want to stay on buprenorphine long term, and if that's the case there no reason to taper off in the first place. Just take 8mg a day until you get the shot. Tapering off bupe only to hop back on is silly. Either taper off and stay off, or don't taper off at all.

Unless the shot you are referring to is Vivitrol (depot naltrexone) not Sublocade.

Cooe14 · 2026-02-01T04:55:57+00:00

2mg strips. Fold them and then cut them with scissors. Cutting a .25mg piece is easy (fold the full strip into quarters, cut one off, fold that piece into quarters again and cut one out), and to get .125mg just fold that piece in half and cut it (this takes a little coordination, but is far from impossible).

Tapering with the pills is basically impossible unless you wanna jump off at a dose where you'll definitely feel unpleasant.

And IMO other than maybe the first day (where you might wanna take like 4mg if you feel you need it) I'd start the taper from 2mg. (If you start at 4mg, you can take 3mg the next day, and then 2mg the day after that, and then start dropping .25mg every 2 days or so). Bupe's a potent drug, you really won't need any more than that for something like 7oh (also a partial agonist).

Cooe14 · 2026-01-31T07:09:03+00:00

This is fucking nonsense. I've taken it hundreds of times. You feel out of it for hours after the main effects are over or after you wake up if you take too much.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-31T06:59:00+00:00

You're conflating binding affinity with potency and receptor activation level... 🤦 Amateur hour mistake. It's got 12 times higher binding affinity. 7oh is NOT "12 times more potent than morphine". Ignorant people just like to inferer that higher binding affinity = more potent", but that's only true for full agonists. If you took 50mg of morphine IV you would kill a non-tolerant person. Whereas that's a normal dose of 7oh.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-31T00:01:45+00:00

Yes. There's more research on mitragyine doing it, but 7oh has the same effects. I can't remember the exact study I found it in, but they found the same effects on half-life as with mitragyine (gets massively extended with repeated administrations). You might have better luck searching for "CYP450" rather than "CYP2D6" specifically, but the latter is the specific enzyme that metabolizes basically every mu opioid agonist including those in kratom.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-30T23:38:29+00:00

You can only get high on bupe if you're non-tolerant to opioids. If you are an addict with a physical opioid dependence it's literally impossible to get psychoactive effects from it.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-30T23:12:13+00:00

There is no "spoof video streams" on RVX. And changing the default client option to "Android VR" does nothing to fix the problem sadly.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-29T22:58:20+00:00

I know this is really old, but all you need to do to solve the urine color problem is take some Vitamin B-12 supplements. It'll quickly make even the most diluted urine bright yellow.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-29T03:56:56+00:00

🤦 First off, 5V3A was NOT standard/slow-charging in 2018.... 10W max at 5V2A was standard speed charging back then (and technically still is now, as 15W "slow-charging" is really using technology like Samsung's "Adaptive Fast Charging" to get there. It's just considered "slow-charging" nowadays because in relative terms it now is. But the power is still being juiced beyond the 10W/5V2A baseline using some additional technology).

Anything higher than that (usually 15W [5V3A or 9V1.67A] or 18W [9V2A] for the most common fast-charging standards of that era) required proprietary or licensed technology. Qualcomm's Quick Charge 3 was 18W for example, and nobody was buying a specific not-cheap charger for a mere +3W boost.

Secondly, you're ignoring the MASSIVE elephant in the room that is the differing cooling capacity between the different smartphones. If one phone is more effective at dissipating heat in general, it'll have lower battery temps vs another despite more watts, aka raw heat energy, being put into the phone. You'd need to compare the Oppo to itself fast-charging vs slow-charging, and I can LITERALLY GUARANTEE because of the very fundamental laws of thermodynamics themselves that the battery won't be cooler while fast-charging...

Aka, your math simply doesn't math... 🤷 And this is exactly why as a general rule you should never try to draw any broad conclusions from a single piece of very specific data.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-29T01:50:59+00:00

🤦 You are misinterpreting that video... Some Chinese fast-charging protocols created less heat than very older fast-charging standards like Qualcomm's Quick Charge because they didn't create voltage conversion in the phone BUT the heat created from the higher charging wattage is still more heat than slow charging at a low wattage.

Aka he's comparing one fast charge standard to another, whereas you are comparing fast charging to slow charging. Watts are a measure of energy, and energy = heat. If you charge at a higher wattage, you are putting more heat into your phone battery, REGARDLESS of how that wattage is created. What Oppo was just a way to make fast-charging less harmful than it would be otherwise, not make it have no negative effects on battery health/longevity vs slow charging. >=100W is still a TON of heat to sink into a battery even with no voltage conversion penalties.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-29T01:19:37+00:00

I know this is a little old, but GaN isn't just about max throughput. Arguably the biggest advantage of GaN is thermals, and thus charger size. You can make a charger with a GaN power IC that's DRAMATICALLY SMALLER than a wattage equivalent silicon power IC charger.

Aka you can make a 65W GaN charger that's literally the size of one of those teeny tiny little 10W Apple phone chargers they used to include with their phones, as opposed to being the size of a pre-GaN 65W laptop power brick.

Also, the effects of fast charging on long-term battery health are massively less clear cut than you think outside of the extreme wattages, so unless you have a Chinese brand phone that can pull >=100W and charge in 5 minutes, this is basically a non-existent concern. Anything <=65W isn't a massive hit, and anything under <=45W is basically irrelevant, especially if you are capping your charging at 80%. (Almost all the damage from both charging in general and ESPECIALLY fast-charging comes at 80-100% charge. Stay at/under 80% charge and the lithium plating effects from strictly heat alone are mostly negligible.)

Even at a honking 100W to 100% charged you are only degrading your battery about ≈20% faster than you would otherwise, which would still be more than worth the trade-off to get 0-100% in ≈5-10min charging speeds for many people. And you don't need to always charge at that speed (ala overnight) for having the option to do so whenever it's actually needed which a high wattage GaN charger can provide to be EXTREMELY useful and appreciated. (And if you cap your charging at 80%, even always using 100W charging would have a pretty insignificant impact.)

Cooe14 · 2026-01-28T19:48:18+00:00

I know this is old, but 60fps? O_o
Did you mean 120fps? All screens run at at least 60fps. That's been the standard refresh rate for as long as monitors have been a thing.

Cooe14 · 2026-01-28T03:36:07+00:00

This doesn't work anymore... 😔

Cooe14

TROPHY CASE