It’s effortless for a manufacturer to print or engrave a bold figure such as “600W” across the surface of a sleek new gadget. Yet the true test lies not in its glossy labeling or impressive specifications, but in whether the product can genuinely rise to meet those lofty expectations. The latest device drawing attention in my corner of the tech world is a purported 600W GaN charger—a product surrounded by extensive online excitement and bold marketing promises. As a professional reviewer who rigorously evaluates dozens of charging solutions every year, I’ve seen the full spectrum—from models that embody excellence and innovation to those that collapse under their own exaggerated claims. At ZDNET, my goal is to showcase only the most reliable, high-performing products, the ones that truly stand out after real-world testing. Even so, I frequently receive inquiries from readers eager to know whether particular new devices live up to their reputations.
Recently, this supposed 600W GaN charger became a topic of considerable curiosity, with tech enthusiasts speculating about its potential to revolutionize high-power charging. Priced at $99, it initially appeared to offer remarkable value—especially when compared to something like the Ugreen Nexode 300W charger, which retails for around $140. On paper, the deal looked irresistible: an eight‑port, 600‑watt powerhouse competing against a five‑port, 300‑watt model from a trusted brand. One might assume that doubling both ports and output automatically means superior performance. Unfortunately, such assumptions rarely align with reality.
My first sign of trouble appeared not in the features but in the branding. The charger was produced by an unfamiliar company, one entirely absent from the established roster of trusted names such as Anker, Ugreen, Belkin, or Baseus—all of which have spent years building reputations for reliability, safety, and consistent engineering. It immediately begged the question: how could a virtually unknown manufacturer be the only one claiming to have a 600W GaN charger ready for consumers? Experience told me to be wary, and that skepticism proved justified almost as soon as I powered it on.
From the outset, the charger’s behavior was erratic. One of the USB‑C ports did indeed deliver around 140 watts as promised, but the second identical port faltered, never exceeding approximately 65 watts. Worse still, one of the supposed 100‑watt connections appeared to be entirely nonfunctional. Each attempt to plug or unplug devices triggered further instability—the charger would abruptly cease operation, forcing me to disconnect and reconnect it from the wall to initiate a makeshift “reboot.” Such inconsistency in performance not only reflects poor internal design but also highlights the absence of proper system safeguards that prevent overloads or synchronization errors in well‑built units. No matter how many configurations I attempted, the charger simply could not approach its advertised 600‑watt output in a stable or reliable manner.
Frustrated but intrigued, I decided to go several steps further by opening the device and inspecting its inner workings. Immediately noticeable inside was an odd, dense substance, resembling thermal compound but with an unusual texture and smell—closer to old window glazing putty than electronics-grade material. It left an oily residue and added significant, seemingly unnecessary weight. My suspicion was that it had been included solely to give the device a deceptive sense of heft, making it feel more substantial and premium when handled. Once removed, the core chassis felt remarkably light, revealing how little real hardware justified its external claims.
A closer examination of the internal circuitry confirmed my concerns. In legitimate high‑power chargers, strict design standards ensure a safe physical and electrical separation between the mains input and the low-voltage circuitry. Here, that crucial isolation was glaringly insufficient. Such a flaw means that in the event of a fault, high, dangerous voltage could potentially leak into the low‑voltage side—posing a very real risk of electric shock or equipment damage. Moreover, the transformers and voltage regulation components inside were not rated anywhere near the levels necessary to support 600 watts of output. Simply put, the design was not just underwhelming—it was potentially hazardous.
Adding to these safety concerns was the shockingly poor construction of the casing. With minimal effort, the outer shell would pop open, fully exposing the live electronics within. Imagine a scenario where the charger slips off a desk while plugged into the wall—such impact could leave high-voltage components exposed, creating a situation where even retrieving the charger could result in direct contact with dangerous current. For a device claiming to deliver 600 watts, this level of build quality is completely unacceptable.
In summary, this product fails on almost every professional criterion: performance, durability, safety, and design integrity. It does not simply fall short of the advertised promise—it is a clear example of misleading engineering and marketing. In an era where manufacturers can easily engrave impressive specifications onto a case or a product listing, the true differentiator remains rigorous testing and transparent quality control. This experience underscores why I personally test every charger, power station, and portable battery that crosses my desk. Reliable power delivery is not about bold numbers but about trustworthy execution. For consumers seeking real, verifiable high‑power performance, proven options such as Ugreen’s Nexode 300W or Anker’s Prime 250W stand as far safer, more dependable alternatives—products engineered by reputable companies with long‑standing commitments to safety, accuracy, and excellence.
Sourse: https://www.zdnet.com/article/ebay-600w-charger-goo-hands-on/
