MagSafe3 or 240W USB-C, which is better to charge MacBook Pro 16”?

I did some quick research on this question.

Because Thunderbolt is only capable of 100W charging, it will actually be a bit slower than charging via MagSafe, which can support up to 140W. Both will work...it's just a question of how fast you need.

Hope this helps.

It's really a matter of personal preference, I think. (And, BTW, I'm assuming you meant the Apple 140W charger, since they don't offer a 240W model?).

I personally like the MagSafe option, as the LED on the MagSafe connector lets me know if it's charging or not. I can't imagine there are any differences in the actual charging between the 2 methods.

Before that higher capacity [240W] USB-C charge cable was released, the "company line" was that if you wanted Fast Charging, it required the 140W power adapter and MagSafe, because it needed more than the 100 maximum capability of the highest standard [100 W] USB-C charge cable.

Since that higher-capacity USB-C charge cable is now available, I think the answer is, "we don't know" whether the MAC can accept that much power over its USB-C ports. The MacBook Pro 16-in was not sold as capable of that, but the actual pinch-point was never made completely clear.

I think yours might be the first query here about that exact issue.

You realize, of course, that makes YOU the world's expert.

You're welcome.

If thunderbolt is limited to 100w, how is the 240w usbc used. Thats cable is linked above. ^