Acer SF314-57G USB-C charging issues (with Philips monitor)

Hi there,

when I connect my Philips B-line 346B1C monitor to my Acer laptop, the charging speed is very low or even non-existing (charging power is maybe 20W, which is barely enough to actually charge when the device is idling, with basically any load it starts discharging - anything else works, that are USB peripherals and displayport over USB-C). The Philips monitor supports USB-C Power Delivery 3.0 with up to 90W (which I verified with a friend's Macbook Pro). On the other hand, the Acer laptop charges just fine with my generic power delivery 3.0 wall charger delivering up to 65W. I also tested two different cables, both certified for 100W power delivery (the one that came with the monitor and another one I picked up on amazon). Both cables work just fine with the generic wall charger, but both fail to properly charge with the monitor.

I also contacted Philips, but haven't received an answer yet.

Anyone has an idea or has experienced a similar problem?

Accepted answers

All comments

JackE

Sorry, port only supports 15watts max for charging. Jack E/NJ

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6029997/uploads/editor/so/q6ert9tufeby.jpg

cjs1337

It definitely does not, as with my generic USB-C Power Delivery 3.0 wall charger it charges with identical speed compared to the regular power adapter (65W).

JackE

That may be so but 15 watts max input is from the specsheet for that port. If you're able to push it harder with a generic adapter, well then I'd hafta guess you're taking a risk by doing so. Sounds to me like the Phillips monitor is acting like it should, consistent with the power input limitations of that port. Jack E/NJ

cjs1337

Please link the spec sheet. Acer Support told me 65W over USB-C is possible, here it does say 45W, and the TB3-Spec allows up to 100W.

JackE

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6029997/uploads/editor/se/za3ruzkanery.jpg

Jack E/NJ

cjs1337

where is this from?
I assume they confuse charging capability to external devices (as this is índeed 15W, 5V*3A) with DC-in capabilities, the link from the UK site I posted above makes that distinction very clearly.

JackE

The sheet above is from the US model specs. The DC-in port on the link you posted likely refers to the same DC-in port on the US model which does indeed support 45 or 65 watt chargers with a standard barrel plug that fits into the DC-inport, not the Type-C-port.

I think the UK link's feature arrangement may incorrectly imply that the "USB Type-C port supports the DC-in port 9 or 12 or 20 V; 45 W". Possibly misleading one into assume that the Type-C port and DC-in port are one and the same. I don't think they are. If the Type-C was only designed to handle 15 watts in one direction, then it very likely is only designed to handle same power level in the other direction.

I suggest you await a Phillips response on this issue. If you then still feel the type C port should handle 45 or 65 watts in both directions, then put in a claim for a repair hardware issue with either Phillips or ACER. However if you feel that you've been misled by the ad and is important enough to you, then I suggest that you return the system to the vendor for a refund

Jack E/NJ

cjs1337

The US-specs I can find (acer.com) just look identical to the UK ones. I also think that this dock exists for a reason (it does not list the SF314-57G as a supported device, but the direct predecessor). Furthermore, the German Acer support directly told me the following:

"Das genannte Notebook verfügt über einen USB3.1 gen2 Port, welcher sowohl Thunderbold3, also auch DisplayPort und USB-P D (Power Delivery) mit 20V@3.25A = 65W und ein USB Type-C Dock Support"

Translates roughly to: "The mentioned notebook features a USB3.1 gen2 Portr with TB3, DP and USB-Power Delivery with 20V@3.25A = 65W, there is also a USB-C Dock available."

JackE

If you're already convinced that C port should handle 65 watts in both directions instead of 15, then don't wait for Philips. Put in a claim for ACER repair service now. Jack E/NJ

cjs1337

As stated in the starting post, the laptop handles 65W from USB-C just fine with the generic wall charger, so before I open a warranty case I need to know if the laptop or the monitor is at fault. That's why I asked if anyone here has had a similar experience with USB-C charging.

Just to add on the port capabilities. I am a 100% certain that the port is designed to handle at least 45W DC-in. Also, from an engineering perspective symmetry in terms of charging/discharging is not at all a given. It is absolutely possible that the port can handle 65W in, but only 15W out, as most likely it is not the same circuit handling charging/discharging anyway.

JackE

I'll ask some of the other ACER users to chime in on this issue/thread. Meanwhile I'd continue to press Philips for a response. Jack E/NJ

PS: Further thoughts on the DC I/O symmetry or lack thereof. I guess it's possible that some of the signal output lines become available as parallel DC-input lines when a monitor isn't present thus explaining why the port might be able handle the full 3.25A or 65watts to the battery pack with just a generic C charger plugged in. But I doubt that level of sophistication is specified in the information we on the users forums would have access too. That info can probably only be 100% confirmed by the designers of the C-chargers, Philips monitor, or ACER thunderbolt interface with the mainboard. Jack E/NJ

cjs1337

thx for forwarding my issue.

With respect to the DC issue. Before buying the monitor I had this device, powered by the same generic wall charger that also works with the laptop itself. With this I could connect two(!) FullHD/60hz displays together with LAN and USB peripherals (albeit only 100Mbit and USB2.0) to the laptop, while charging full speed. In general, it is not that data lines (display, USB and so on) can be used for power transfer and vice versa. The USB-C spec has 4 lines total for power transfer, and it is up to the device's battery electronics to decide how much power can be transferred (in both directions). I am quite sure the circuitry to charge the device is different from the one used to deliver power to devices connected to the laptop (eg mobile phones).

The only distinction manufacturers can make is if the USB-C bandwidth is used for display or USB data. The litte device linked above prioritised display output (with two full-size display ports) over USB and LAN (so only 2.0/100Mbit/s for the latter) while the Philips monitor has a specific setting, where I can decide if I want to run 3440*1440@100Hz and USB2.0 or the same resolution at 60Hz and USB3.2 (this setting unfortunately does not have an effect on my charging issue).

Last remark: "Power Delivery 3.0" is a standard, which Philips claims to have implemented almost to its fullest extent (charging up to 90W with 100W being the max in the spec) and also Acer should have implemented it accordingly as TB3 ususally incorporates Power Delivery as well. There is really not much wiggle room spec-wise, but one of the two parties botched it, and unfortunately I think Acer is more likely to be that party.

Quick Links

Top Members

Weekly

Puraw 145

Swift Series Intel^® Evo™

Game Pass

Acer Corner

Gaming on Chromebook

Swift Series Intel® Evo™

Game Pass

Acer Corner

Gaming on Chromebook

Swift Series Intel^® Evo™