Posts by wiredotter14

wearymason4 said:If the power adapter has a lower max amperage than what the laptop actually needs to run or charge, the adapter is going to take the hit. It’ll try to push more amps than it's rated for and end up overheating or just dying completely.

That only happens if you're using some cheap, junk adapter. A proper, certified one—like the OEM stuff you get from Dell or HP—has built-in overcurrent protection. It won't blow itself up; it'll just provide the maximum current allowed by its specs.
It's the same deal with phone chargers. You can plug a modern smartphone into an old 5W brick, even if that phone is capable of pulling 3A at 5V (which is basically standard nowadays for 15W charging).

stormygull86 said:So, using a lower amperage than my charger provides isn't great, but a higher one won't cause damage if it's not massive?
And can these 3.33/3.34A adapters actually hurt the laptop or the battery—like overworking it or draining it faster?
Maybe these are silly questions, I just don't get how this works... 🤷‍♂️

Too much voltage or amperage can mess with both the laptop and the battery, but as long as the voltage is right, the laptop regulates its own current draw.

Basically, the laptop will just pull less power from a beefier charger, just like it pulls less when it's nearly full.

You could use a weaker charger, but it’ll charge slower—if it’s too weak, you might actually drain the battery faster than you can fill it. Usually, swapping a 45W for a 65W isn't an issue.

For instance, I'm charging my laptop—which came with a 65W brick—using a 35W phone charger.

This assumes everything is working properly. Looking at the photos, these look like genuine OEM chargers (Dell, HP), so there shouldn't be any issues. It's a different story if you're buying some uncertified junk from overseas; those can be totally unreliable and dangerous.

Look, you can definitely run eSports titles at 1080p on a GTX 1650. But honestly? It’s not worth the money anymore since they're selling new cards now. The price needs to drop significantly if it's going to make sense—either for gaming or just as a basic display output card.

Lawrence Ortiz2 said:Looks like The New Guy has been grinding for over 6 years now, still tirelessly helping people hunt down the right gear. Respect. 😁

This time, I need a monitor for my laptop (i5-7300, 1060 6gb, 16gb). It’s got HDMI and Mini DisplayPort inputs.

Thinking about grabbing a 34" curved monitor. Won't be gaming on it or running anything super heavy.

First one that caught my eye is the 34" Xiaomi Mi Curved v2, 144Hz, 4ms. That would fit my budget..

Looking for other suggestions if you've got them, and just need confirmation that the Mini DisplayPort won't be an issue. Thanks.

Mini DisplayPort shouldn't be a dealbreaker; you'll just need a Mini DisplayPort to DP cable or a dongle.
Since that laptop packs a GTX1060, there's a chance the HDMI port is 2.0 standard. If so, it can probably handle full resolution and a decent refresh rate through a regular HDMI cable.

I own that monitor. It's solid. The curve isn't extreme, making it fine for work. I'd recommend it if you specifically need width. But, if vertical space matters more, you're better off with a standard 32" 1440p monitor—they're taller and actually give you more total surface area. These ultrawides have less total area despite the larger diagonal.

Regarding the specific model, you'd be better off hunting for an IPS panel if you have options. This one has pretty mediocre viewing angles, and the backlight bleed is noticeable in the corners.

This one is likely a better/higher quality choice for productivity.

https://www.nabava.net/monitori/iiya...-21-9-97544571

velvetlynx3 said:I think Steve hit the nail on the head in that video. He laid out the whole PCIe 3/4 situation perfectly and backed it up with graphs—you just have to actually pay attention.

Not to mention his review of the 1650 was... something else.

And yeah, those cards are basically "just enough to get a signal" for $167. I run into this all the time in the corporate world. Heh, I recently had to slap a bunch of GT 730s into machines because the chosen CPU didn't have an iGPU...

Yeah... honestly, cards in the RX6400 tier shouldn't really be used. They’re marginally better than a decent integrated chip, but hey, if you just need a display, they're fine. They're miles ahead of those Nvidia GT7xx cards, which are absolute garbage and should have been retired years ago.

The RX6400 should probably cost next to nothing and be aimed at budget builds using slightly beefier CPUs that just need video output with some modern features—like HEVC hardware decoding (not revolutionary, but still a step up from prehistoric tech).

Take a Ryzen 5950 x and an RX6400 for a build that's primarily CPU-heavy...

Otherwise, treating the RX6400 or RX6500 as "gaming" cards is almost pointless. You'd be better off pairing something like a 12100F with one of those.

Processors like the i3 10100 f and a ton of older Ryzen chips paired with B350/450 boards don't support PCIe 4.0, so that setup is a total disaster...

The Nvidia RTX3050 is a bad value for the money, but at least it—along with the RX6600(XT)—has PCIe x8, which is acceptable (meaning minimal bottlenecking on PCIe 3.0).

Jesse Sanchez4 said:Forgot one more thing—she could just save as an SVG and import that straight into Adobe Illustrator.

Honestly, the easiest fix is just to watch her workflow or ask 😁

👍👍

The part where those fans blow right under the laptop?

It might help, but honestly, you just need to prop the thing up on something—even a stack of books works—just to get some airflow moving so all those hot surfaces and vents aren't choked off.

If the laptop's internal cooling system is already trash, these external fans aren't going to do much for you.

Ronald Bishop58 said:You can still snag an RX580 for around $50.$200.

Most of those are the 4GB versions, which still perform convincingly better than a GTX 1650. They're perfectly fine for 1080p. The 8GB models run a bit pricier.

velvetlynx3 said:Oh, great. It’s just wonderful seeing people dump their old junk on Craigslist at full retail prices like they're brand new. Absolutely perfect.

Ronald Bishop58 said:You want me to show you the receipt for what I paid for an RTX 3070 two years ago?

Alexander Moore67 said:Look, first off, they aren't garbage. Even today, they're solid cards for lower resolutions. The price? That's just whatever the market decides it is.

It's funny how differently everyone interpreted what velvetlynx3 meant by "old crap."
🤣🍿🎉🍿

The RX580 is ancient, sure, but it still absolutely crushes every other card mentioned in that price range when you look at actual value.

The GTX 1650 is old junk. It’s fine for an OEM PC if you can snag one for like $5.$200

Regarding that RTX 3070... honestly, nobody on the forums or at the detective agency really cares how much Ronald Bishop58 paid for his 3070 years ago.

Look, regarding the RX6500—it runs on PCIe x4. If you aren't running a motherboard and CPU combo that actually supports PCIe 4.0, you're stuck with PCIe 3.0 x4. That basically turns it into PCIe 2.0 x8... which throttles the card so hard its performance can end up lower than an RX580.

The odds are that anyone buying a card like that doesn't even have PCIe 4.0, making it a pretty terrible choice.

The RX6400 would be a decent card if you could snag it for around $400.$167 New one. Usually just here to lurk.

Why bother with a GTX 1650 when you can grab an RX 580 8GB for roughly $333900 bucks, or even a 4GB version for even less? There are much stronger cards out there than the GTX 1650. Honestly, it was a terrible value back when it launched for $150, and seeing it sold used for similar prices now is just a total disaster.

The only reason to pick up a GTX 1650 is if you're stuck with some random OEM desktop that doesn't have any PCIe power connectors.

I’ve had zero issues charging my Dell MacBook Pro using a 35W Apple charger, even though it originally shipped with a 65W brick.
Laptops without dedicated GPUs usually pull about 20-30W.

Sounds like your battery is completely shot—you might find the laptop won't even boot up without a functional battery.

Look, honestly, who cares what you call the resolution? QHD, 2K, 1440p... it doesn't matter. Everyone's really talking about 1440p anyway, even if the name technically comes from that 2000-pixel horizontal count. You could have an ultrawide at 3440x1440, but people usually just mean 2560x1440 when they bring it up.

Anyway, Bo, were you asking about a specific 4070Ti model—like, is the price-to-performance actually worth it—or are you just wondering if a 4070Ti is a solid pick for 1080p or maybe 1440p in general?

For 1440p, it's fine if you've got the cash to burn, though I wouldn't call it a great deal.
For 1080p, it's total overkill.

Thomas Sanchez2 said:Thanks for the general info.

I'm not sure how to plug the monitor in directly since this ultrabook only has two Type-C ports 🙂 I assume there's a cable out there for it, I just don't own one.

And when I plug the charger in directly, the warning message—that yellow alert—disappears. 🙂 But yeah, power delivery seems about the same whether it's direct or through the hub.

Aha, so your laptop doesn't even have a standard HDMI port?

Look, if it works, it works. Don't sweat the monitor notification.

Otherwise, you could just grab a USB Type-C to HDMI or DisplayPort cable. You'd need that if you wanted higher resolutions or refresh rates than what you have now, but your current setup (1440p 60Hz) is easy enough that almost any HDMI will handle it, including the one coming through your hub.

Ronald Bishop58 said:Need an expert opinion on this card. Thoughts? The link points to a Palit graphics card. It’s just hardware. Another component in the pile. Nothing revolutionary about it.

Is there anything actually better in this class that won't break the bank?

Thanks.

Expert opinion? It’s ugly. Period. 😁

Thomas Sanchez2 said:Yeah, here’s that working link again: https://bit.ly/3HAyzc9

Look, if the box says 100W, that doesn't mean it actually delivers that in the real world. Since the original charger is only 45W, passing it through a hub shouldn't even be triggering that warning.

The hardware isn't failing—charging works fine and the monitor is solid over HDMI—it's just those messages. Why the exclamation mark? Why the claim that the monitor is limited? It makes no sense.

100W just means that USB hub was designed (on paper, anyway) to handle a 100W power brick so your laptop can pull that much juice through it. That's the theoretical ceiling. You wouldn't plug in something higher than 100W if your laptop could actually draw more than that.

Your charger is 45W, but once it hits the USB hub, you lose power due to inefficiency or weird circuitry. Your laptop might only be seeing 25W or 35W. These hubs are notorious for losing power along the way. It sounds stupid, like saying water isn't flowing through a faucet when it clearly is, but that's how electronics work.

The laptop realizes it's getting less juice than the original 45W brick expects, and that's why it's throwing the error. But honestly, if everything functions, who cares? As long as it isn't draining faster than it charges, you're fine.

As for the monitor, it looks fine to me. Everything should work since the specs align with HDMI 1.2, which your hub, laptop, and cable definitely support.

It's just bizarre that it's complaining about a "DisplayPort Device..." when you aren't even using a DisplayPort—you're running HDMI through a hub.

Bottom line: I'd ignore it. If it works, it works.

Try plugging the monitor directly into the laptop and see if the message pops up then.

And you can always plug the charger straight into another port on the laptop to bypass the charging issue entirely.

Aha, just saw the link on another thread:

Can a mod merge these threads?

Anyway, from what I can see, it’s just your standard USB Type-C hub that claims to support 100W charging on paper.
https://www.ryanscomputers.com/orico...usb-type-c-hub

I dealt with something similar once using a cheap, low-quality hub.

Does that hub get hot when you're actually using it? Regardless of whether the battery is full or not?

That Windows notification issue you're seeing is typical, but honestly, it's not a huge deal.
It happens because either the hub isn't passing enough current, or it's overheating and losing power from the charger.
The fact that your stock charger is only 45W doesn't help—there wasn't much juice to begin with.

Bottom line: don't sweat it as long as everything works and your laptop charges fast enough through the hub.

If you want to fix it, just plug the laptop charger directly into the laptop and use the USB hub in a different Type-C port.
The only reason you couldn't do that is if your other port is being used for a video output.

Can you clarify the question about the monitor? How is it connected and what's the actual issue (aside from that message)?

P.S.

Thunderbolt is a whole different beast. You don't have it through that hub, and you don't need it for what you're doing.
A decent Thunderbolt hub costs well over $100.

The link for that USB hub isn't working.

Can you drop the link again so we can figure out what's actually going on?
And did a charger come with the hub, or are you just using your laptop's original power brick?

that USB hub link isn't working for you

is this one a powered hub?

Alexander Moore67 said:Every single B550 board we suggested is garbage for overclocking.

Nobody asked for overclocking, and honestly, trying to OC those processors doesn't make much sense anyway.

fadedorca66 said:He’s mistaken. I thought the same thing, but turns out you actually need a Microsoft license for NTFS support. Because of that, there are even some newer TVs out there that don't support NTFS at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

I'm speaking from experience here; no clue how it works for every single model on the market.

Looking back over the last decade, at least ten different TVs I've used handled USB sticks or external hard drives on NTFS without a hitch, while a few others—even more recent models—just wouldn't touch exFAT.

It makes zero sense that exFAT isn't the standard, especially since, as far as I know, it's free, universal, and easy to implement, but whatever.

I have no idea how people using a Macintosh manage to get files onto a USB drive to watch on their TV, unless the obvious answer is just—go buy an Apple TV. 😁

It’s easier just using my Computer—right-click and you’re done formatting. You only really need Disk Management if you’re dealing with multiple partitions and trying to merge or split them up.

Anyway, most TVs have supported NTFS for at least the last 10 or 15 years.

The only thing that won't work with NTFS is a Macbook. For those, you need exFAT, which works on Windows and MacOS and Android, but honestly, TVs rarely pick that up.