I just ordered a DIY edition 12th i7-1260p gen laptop, but before that I was reading this review from notebookcheck Framework Laptop 13.5 Intel 12th gen review: Like the Microsoft Surface, but actually repairable - NotebookCheck.net Reviews
“We’re able to record a maximum consumption of 61.2 W from the small (~5.8 x 5.8 x 2.7 cm) 60 W AC adapter when running Prime95 loads. The manufacturer has made no changes to the AC adapter even though the newer processor is more demanding this year. A higher capacity AC adapter could have potentially allowed for better Turbo Boost performance or faster charging when running demanding loads.”
That leaded me to order the laptop without a charger so I’m planning to buy a 100w charger, not only for that situation but also to have the chance to charge another devices.
Any of you have any experiences of better performance using a higher wattage charger?
Yes I am using an Anker 737 Charger, with it I have achieved the max package power limit of 65w for a second or two while stress testing. YAY!!! Will it improve sustained performance? Nope. Will I ever see it hit that with turboboost for any task not specifically designed to stress test it? Nope. Am I suggesting that you not get a third party charger? Nope. Definitely buy one. The Framework charger has issues with the cord wearing out way too quickly, and you can only charge one item at a time. Also kind of bulky compared to what is available now.
Is that a current issue? I had understood it was identified and resolved, although I don’t know how to distinguish the affected parts other than seeing the fraying.
You are corrrect they do appear to have addressed it in the manufacturing process. Still, I would look at third party chargers for versatility, and size.
Ive just had an experience, albeit with the 1280p. I ordered just the mainboard as ive altered and printed a Framework case. I made the assumption that any old Usb c power adapter with a 20v 65w and up would work, and they do, but I need this machine to operate at full performance, rather than full efficiency as many users seem to prefer. I tested the machine with cinebench R23, expecting the 11000 score advertised in Frameworks blog, however the most it would do it 9500.
After much testing and messing around, plus advice from support, Ive established a high performance power plan in windows, and settled on a 140w Apple charger with Apples original USB C cable. Nothing else will give me that score.
I can also report that my max power draw is 85w, but only the 140w charger will let the machine run at full performance. (Ive tried an 87w, yet to try a 92w which I have at work)
Im sure there are other ways, but that has been my experience…
I would like to point out that not all USB-C cables are made the same.
I am using a UGreen 100W GaN charger witn their 100W cable, performance for me seems to be equal to the Apple 140W MBP charger with Apple’s USB-C cable though
So I did some testing with a dock and with a charger. The charger is the Anker 737 with 100w PD for the laptop. With this charger plugged in it was pulling 75w at some points of the stress testing. Meanwhile the dock which I believe is rated at 60w PD was maxing out at 61w and would dip into the battery for the additional wattage, but even with that it was not reaching that 75w max. So it appears that a stronger charger may simply allow the processor to do its thing better than a weaker charger. That being said once things normalized it was drinking about 50w for extended periods of time after the initial period of running on turboboost was over. So is a 60w charger sufficient? Yes it is for most things and even for extended heavy tasks, but if you want to be safe and you don’t want the device dipping into the battery while plugged in you should be looking at docks and chargers with 80w PD or more.
The laptop will not be physically capable of using anything above 100W on the Apple 140W adapter, as the Framework is only PD 3.0. It won’t negotiate above 20V. The extra 40W is done by increasing the voltage to 28V as part of the PD 3.1 spec.