Introduction :
Watts are the new megapixels – the numbers competition in the field of rapid charging on devices is heating up. While some choose not to participate (Apple and Samsung, but also Google and Sony), others are producing power numbers previously unimaginable. We only recently got to test Realme’s 240W solution on the GT3, and you can read about our results in our complete evaluation of that phone.
But 240W is no longer the most wattage someone can pour on a phone’s battery – and no, we’re not referring to Redmi’s recent 300W lab test.
We currently have Infinix’s All-Round Fast Charge, which is a package that is with us in the workplace and has 260W marked on it. They also have a 110W cordless model, which may be even more remarkable in its own right. We were able to time both and have some incredibly bizarre statistics to share.
However, there is one minor caveat before we continue. While Realme’s 240W charging is in a production device and the Redmi appears to be on a test stand somewhere, the Infinix answer is somewhere in the middle. The business appears to be secure enough in its technology to ship it out to reviewers, but it’s not yet a commercial-grade product that you can buy in a store. Infinix guarantees a commercially available product this year, so there’s not much time to wait.
The Infinix Zero Ultra has been changed to serve as the demonstration phone for the All-Round Fast Charge. The battery capacity has been reduced marginally (4,400mAh vs. 4,500mAh on the regular phone) and an induction coil has been added because the Zero Ultra does not allow wireless charging. In terms of charging speed, the “garden variety” Zero Utlra itself is not a slouch, boasting 180W speed and 12 minutes to go from zero to full.
Technology :
According to Infinix’s literature, they use a 12C battery, which can potentially be charged in 5 minutes. (60 minutes divided by the C rating). It also mentions a four-pump system, as opposed to the two-pump systems seen in previous fast-charging versions. According to our knowledge, they’re charging two distinct batteries, and the voltage recorded by Android does indicate they have two batteries connected in series – it’s 7.4V nominal, rather than the normal 3.7V.
The GaN AC converter is certified at up to 20V/13A, and the included cable is also rated at 13 amps.
The wireless charging ‘dock’ (as they call it, which may be more apt than the ‘pad’ we’d usually go with) provides for both vertical and horizontal phone positioning and has a built-in fan to aid in heat dispersal. In our experience, the fan is quite noisy, but as an ultra-fast wireless charger, it presumably has no place on your bedside table.
According to Infinix, 21 of the 142 hardware and software safeguards for the phone and connected devices during high-speed charging are temperature monitors. The battery will have kept 90% of its initial capacity after 1000 charge-discharge cycles, or what they claim is two years of use, according to the company’s internal testing, so they are suggesting some fairly heavy use.
The process for testing :
Infinix did provide a method for achieving the stated charging rates. While it would normally be illogical to expect a user to follow a pre-determined procedure in real life, their recommendations weren’t out of this world, and were somewhat closely aligned with our usual testing methodology, so the results are conveniently comparable with those seen in our reviews’ Charging speed section.
Outcome :
While it did continue to draw power for a while after that, and Android reported a battery “full” condition 7:51 minutes after the start, the Demo phone achieved a reported 100% after being connected in for 6:27 minutes during our testing of the wired charging. It’s the first figure we print in our reviews technically, and it’s standard practise for phones to report 100% for a brief period of time before actually achieving the complete state and cutting off the charging.
As stated in the Infinix documentation, we did achieve 25% in the first 60 seconds, and a 50% level of charge was attained in 2:13 minutes.
Although we’d say there were no modifications made to the testing process in between tests, the 7:13-minute trial did involve a power metre plugged in between the phone and its cable. Since that cycle was the slowest in the beginning, we’re moving towards the possibility that it had an effect on how well it performed. That’s essentially the reason we’re not publishing the power metre measurements; we think it’s another instance of “observing the phenomenon alters the phenomenon.”
Although we would state no changes were made to the testing procedure between tests, the 7:13-minute experiment did include a power metre inserted in between the phone and its cable. Because that cycle was the slowest in the outset, we can speculate that it had an impact on how well it did. That is basically why we are not publishing the power metre readings; we believe it is another case of “observing the phenomenon changes the phenomenon.”
Along with a verdict :
In the workplace, we have differing views on ultra-fast charging. That is to say, while some of us adore it for its usefulness, others despise it because of the supposed negative effects it has on battery life. The problem is that while rapid charging has instant practical advantages, the lifespan argument is more of a speculative one because it is virtually impossible to conduct an actual, impartial long-term test in contrast to “slow” charging in the real world.
How quick is fast enough is an issue that unavoidably emerges. a half-hour? Ten moments? Five? Is it true that “fast enough” doesn’t exist? We’ll make an effort to avoid engaging in such metaphysical disagreements because, if we can’t resolve it among ourselves, who are we to provide a solution for you? A sample phone, a few chargers, and a stopwatch are all we have. We’re just a group of men.
