I am trying to get a grasp of how to identify what power standards various PSUs claim to conform to. The label on this Dell PSU is ram-packed with info, but I see no direct claim that it supports USB-PD at all.

The range of voltages might imply that perhaps maybe it’s USB-PD, but I see no indication where they take credit for that; much less a particular PD revision. IIUC, that means if it’s USB-PD non-compliant and someone drags Dell into court, they can say to the judge “we never said it was USB PD-compliant”.

The review that probes this thing shows that the PSU is detected as PD3.0. Yet at the same time it does not support PPS according to the blogger. So wtf.. how can it be PD3 if it does not support PPS?

It seems Dell is banking on consumers not being keen to read the label. According to the blogger:

The odd thing is that it is advertising itself as a 96W adapter (20V/4.8A) which is different to the printed 20V/5A rating on the rear.

So it seems has Dell decided that if they do not benefit from advertising a capability, they might as well not mention it and downplay what it can do, for legal purposes.

The blogger goes on to test it with all kinds of fancy costly gear that no typical consumer would have. When I am at a street market rifling through a pile of dumped electronics, how do I know what I am looking at? Do any of the cryptic symbols on that Dell label suggest USB-PD?

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 2 days ago* (3 children)

Counter question: where does it say on there that it's PD3.0?

From the power source it looks like PD2.

Perhaps it follows since stuff from the PD3 specs and that's why that tester said it, but this is guesswork.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but the gist of your text is "why is this item not saying what a random guy said it should say??"

I've checked another Dell power plug, they don't claim anything on the box concerning standards they follow from what I can tell. Third party ones often do though.

My Lenovo doesn't say anything about that either interestingly, thanks for the rabbit hole! :D

Edit: remember that companies need to pay fees when they advertise with the standard - they can just follow its spec without advertising it at all, I can see that happening for laptop producers specially as they don't sell their power units as generic products (i.e. with a focus to market them).

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 days ago*

    As best I can find, there's no logo/mark to indicate compliance with PD3.0, nor for PPS.

    If it's compliant with those, I suspect it'll be in the documentation.

    You're probably on the right track - they designed this for their devices, will publish what it can do but not claim compliance with a spec they didn't build specifically to target. Even if they use PD3/PPS, if they don't label it, don't claim it, they never have to deal with lack of compliance.

    In the High Level Design meetings (or equivalent), they probably laid out charging time/performance requirements which included using exsiting commodity tech and general conformance to USB C.

    This so any PD compliant charger could charge the laptop, but their own charger would follow it's own specs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    Counter question: where does it say on there that it’s PD3.0?

    Nowhere. I found no mention of PD anything which inspires some of my questions.

    Perhaps it follows since stuff from the PD3 specs and that’s why that tester said it, but this is guesswork.

    That’s indeed the sort of answer I was looking for. The testing device detects PD3. This somewhat suggests that electronically the PSU (falsely) identifies itself as PD 3.0-compliant.

    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you but the gist of your text is “why is this item not saying what a random guy said it should say??”

    I want to understand the contradiction. The testing device declares that the PSU is PD3. But the test results led the blogger to claim it’s not PPS. So where is the lying occuring? I expect the PD protocols to establish a handshake whereby each side of the handshake discloses the PD revision it adheres to. Otherwise the protocol is quite shitty.

    If we assume a non-shitty protocol, than the Dell PSU is falsely announcing itself as PD3 and the tester is just a messenger.

    Edit: remember that companies need to pay fees when they advertise with the standard - they can just follow its spec without advertising it at all, I can see that happening for laptop producers specially as they don’t sell their power units as generic products (i.e. with a focus to market them).

    That’s interesting. I suppose the fees finance a certification effort. And I suppose that’s fair enough. But if a device claims to be PD3 not on the label but makes this claim in the electronic protocol, the claim is still a claim nonetheless. People and machines rely on claims made by protocols. And I suppose it’s all legally dicey. Dell could not be easily prosecuted for false advertising if they wrote nothing on the box or label that a buyer would see. But the hardware is still lying about its capability and I would think that would (or should) have consequences.

    legal liability?Dell’s ass might be covered as well if these PSUs are sold only with the appliance they drive, and the docs say to only ever use X with Y, do not sell separately, yada yada. Dell knows that most consumers just look for the USB-C connector and are happy enough if they see it.

    But is Dell safe? What if someone attaches this Dell PSU to a 17.5v appliance. The appliance is told by Dell’s handshake that it’s PD3-compliant. So the appliance starts the negotiation at 20v and tries to use PPS to get the voltage down to 17.5. But because the Dell PSU lied, it sticks with 20v and fries the appliance. Is that possible?

    what happens at the street marketThe reality is that the laptops get separated from the chargers. At my local street market, laptops almost never come with a charger. Then some other people are only selling chargers and no laptops. Chargers were fished out of dumpsters, often. Of course it’s an ecocidal defeat of the purpose of USB PD to a large extent if Dell’s business model flies.. if they can still say their Dell charger is only for Dell laptops, then it’s basically e-waste when separated from the laptop.

    Dell buyers should pay attention to whether new laptops are advertised as using USB PD. Because if so, then it’s a deception that the laptop includes a charger that is not. Or is left for Dell owners to guess that their laptop depends on a USB PD PSU?

    Can sophisticated consumers get stung by this?An advanced consumer would show up to the street market with a test rig that feeds PSUs from an inverter. They would quickly see “PD3” on their fancy test tool and conclude the PSU is worth buying. Only to later find after deeper tests that it’s not actually PD3. Because the PSU lies in the handshake.

    Yet another element of the USB-PD shit showWhen OEM PSUs are sold on the 2nd-hand market with a list of output voltages and a USB-C connector, buyers are obviously going to expect the PSUs to drive their USB-PD appliance. It does not say on the label of that Dell PSU “only for Dell laptops, not USB PD compliant”. But by arbitrary chance, the PSU will happen to work for some non-Dell appliances. But we cannot count it. We can only guess. It’s indeed a fucking shit show.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago

    Got nothing for you but I have to say im here to see posts like this. I often talk about blocking and wanting to filter out content and folk will talk about bubbles. Its not trying to be in a bubble its about trying to pair down whats out there so instead of seeing a post throwing and link with no context out im seeing this sorta neat thoughtful thing you were wondering about. Its an interesting thing and the responses are interesting.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Where does it claim to do PD3?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    It’s not clear. The testing device claims the PSU is PD3. But why? Is the testing device guessing? Or is the PSU outright announcing in the protocol “I am a PD3 PSU”?

    IOW, it’s a standing question. My conjecture is that the PSU makes this claim electronically, when handshaking in the USB PD protocol.

  • source
  • parent
  • This is so frustrating because it will not charge the steam deck at 45w, despite being more than capable. And of course if I use a different, capable, power supply on the laptop, it complains about low wattage

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child)

    Isn’t that nonconformant?

    Not to my knowledge. PPS remains an optional protocol in the standard. Why this is reasonable…

    PPS offers the most granular realtime PD adjustments of not only voltage (in tiny 20mV steps) but also of current delivery (at I think 50mA increments but don’t quote me).

    This is why it’s typically required by manufacturers for their fastest device charging speeds. PPS allows the most precise matching of power delivery to what BMS reports cells can absorb with little to no onboard power conditioning and minimal waste heat.

    It’s a premium rating beyond standard compliance.

    ETA: Confirmed. A potentially interesting follow-up question would be whether the laptop’s mainboard PDO tells you the laptop supports PPS even though its power brick doesn’t.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I appreciate the link. I wanted to see what you saw, so I opened the ZIP file and it expands to 27 files. I believe the relevant file is USB_PD_R3.2_V1.2_2026_05_20.pdf, page 42, which states:

    3.2.5.2. SPR Programmable Power Supply (PPS) Programmable Power Supply (PPS) is Optional. When included, the voltages and currents a PPS Shall support are as defined in Table 3.4.

    If it’s optional in rev. 3.2, I assume it’s optional in rev 3.0. I’m a bit astonished because PPS is probably the most signficant feature of rev.3. The industry is not competent enough to even tell consumers which rev a device conforms to. But if it did, typical Wikipedia-informed consumers who see PD “rev.3” advertised would naturally expect PPS. As you are correct that PPS is indeed optional, many consumers will get burnt by the misunderstanding.

    A potentially interesting follow-up question would be whether the laptop’s mainboard PDO tells you the laptop supports PPS even though its power brick doesn’t.

    What’s PDO?

    The problem seems to be that a laptop could be designed to /need/ PPS, e.g. if the voltage it needs is well below 20v. While most PSUs do not advertise USB-PD 3(+) compliance, much less PPS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    What’s PDO?

    Power Data Objects are sent by the device to the host (in this case your power supply) containing information about device capabilities and requirements.

    The problem is that a laptop could be designed to /need/ PPS

    This would be highly unusual, especially for a Dell workstation laptop. Some laptops can use PPS for better internal power efficiency and battery charging rate, but I know of none that require it. The feature is also leveraged far more often in small sealed devices where waste heat has basically nowhere to go, so if any device were to actually require it, I would look to small wearables. In fact, while I haven’t checked and don’t know, I’d wager many smart watch chargers are PPS enabled, which would explain their oversized connectors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    So anyone not following the tech chatter, here is a TL;DR Cliff’s notes of the scenario..

    Imagine Howard on Big Bang Theory Howard on Big Bang Theory

    is in the shop buying a robot. Conversation goes like this:

    Howard: will the Dell robot give me a hand job?
    Sales person: I have no idea.. cannot guarantee anything about that. Nothing in the specs says that it can do that.
    Howard (to the Dell robot): do you have a program to give hand jobs?
    robot: yes I offer services to the PD (Personal Delight) specification.
    Howard: I’ll take it!
    …(at home after naming the robot “Della”)…
    Howard: Della, give me a hand job.
    Della: no, I cannot execute the handJob() program. My hand is only spec’d to grab objects using 40 newtons of clamping force. My programming does not support a variety of levels of force in small steps. Objects I grab also must meet a minimum size constraint.
    …(back in the shop)…
    Howard: I would like to return this Dell product. It refused to execute my command.
    Sales person: Sorry Howard, I told you I did not know if the robot had the capability to inquired about. There are no returns.

    In short, it’s a problem where the sales info and literature does not lie, but the machine can itself lie about its own capability.

  • source