19 Power Supply Round up on Anandtech!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TomNoddy

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2003
3
0
0
Kris,

thanks for the prompt reply. :beer:

PSU problems hit me first-hand when I built a computer for someone who kept trying to squeeze the budget downward and downward. I bought an Epox 8KHA+, Kingmax PC2700, unlocked Duron 950 and a cheap 300W PSU from the local computer shop. It would repeatedly hang at any FSB, but hooking up my own power supply immediately transformed said combo into an overclocking champ. Strangely, my FIC AD11 with Crucial ECC PC2100 coped OK with the iffy PSU.

Later, that same power supply caused problems on an ASUS A7V333 w/Crucial PC2700 : unstable when running the memory above PC2100 speeds. I put some Corsair PC3200 CL2 in there and was able to get it stable at 2700 speeds, but when I changed that power supply for an Enermax 300W I found I could get both brands of memory running at 166.

That power supply met an unfortunate end with a hammer soon afterwards. :beer:

I'm going to try an put my system through Kris's memtest torture test and see how it gets on.

It's got a Zalman 300W PSU operating nowhere near full load ( Underclocked Duron 950 @ 733 1.4V).
Mainboard is an Epox 8RDA+ with 2x256MB Corsair PC3200 CL2 running at PC2100 speeds.

If it can't go 18 hours without a single bit-flip I think it's gonna be Hammertime again :evil:
 

KristopherKubicki

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,636
0
0
Tom:

I am guessing its no surprise your ECC memory did ok with the power supply. While some doubt my "Interference" test, it demonstrates exactly the principle behind ECC. I'm guessing memtest86 right out of the box could demonstrate that for you even. (there are a lot of bootable isos around with it on there)


On another note: PCP&C agreed to send me some nicer units for our next review. It should be interesting, but when they still make these things cost $200 I hesitate to think they will be able to win editors choice.

Cheers,

Kristopher
 

McMadman

Senior member
Mar 25, 2000
938
0
76
Personally I would love to see some of PCP&C's units tested as well, especially their quiet line of supplies and how they compare to the regulars. Considering the price they are, you would think that they would have included semi quiet fans on the regular model, and quieter still for the quiet models.
 

TomNoddy

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2003
3
0
0
I did attempt to recreate that interference test on my pc, by entering test 2 in unbuffered mode, then pressing "o" to bring up the options screen at 60%. This paused the test. Six hours later I allowed the test to resume and found no errors. Would have done a longer test but I can't be without it that long.

Tech-Report's results with an oscilloscope in their recent PSU roundup (http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/psus/index.x?pg=1) were broadly in line with what was found here, which lends some validity to this test.

 

devers

Senior member
Jul 6, 2003
202
0
0
Kris, I'd just like to compliment you on your impressive and professional responses in this thread. It can be hard to take criticism, especially when it isn't worded with much diplomatic care. I think its great that you can admit mistakes, and that you're working to improve your knowledge in the area.

For myself, I found the article informative. I don't know anything about PSUs though. For future reference, I might suggest putting some newb-ish explanations in about the voltage/wattage readings. The power measurement tables were confusing for me too.

It is difficult, no doubt, to find the right balance between helping less informed readers get a grip on PSU basics, and offering a quality round-up review that will be useful to experienced and expert consumers and enthusiasts. All in all, I'd say you did a good job. There were apparently some technical problems with specific tests, but it's nice to see more articles on less flashy components like PSUs. The more articles that come out on these issues, the more opportunities people like me have to learn about these components.
 

Zepper

Elite Member
May 1, 2001
18,998
0
0
The PCP&C Turbo Cool PSUs are for systems where the PSU fan might be the ONLY exhaust fan. If you have other exhausts as well, then you could safely swap a quieter fan or buy one of their Silencer units.

And as the earlier review, this review is technically very poor. The units should be tested to the point their overload protection cuts in. Load each rail until it reaches its rating or the OL trips or it blows up - whichever comes first. And track the voltage to that point. Then do the combined 3/5, 3/5/12 in 10% steps until the above limits are reached or exceeded.

As it is, we don't know whether they meet their specs or what kind of margin each PSU might have above its specs. Nor do we have a clue as to relative efficiency (pwr in vs. pwr out). Or whether the OL protection works.
. An experienced tech or engineer should design the tests so that even Chris or some other intermediate geek could get some useful results from future PSU comparos. Otherwise AT may as well not bother...

.bh.
 

JPSJPS

Senior member
Apr 17, 2001
216
0
0
Originally posted by: Ginta
JPSJPS, since you seem well informed, I'm curious to your opinion of the testing methodology used for power supply reviews at Silentpcreview.
For a design engineer, being blunt is usually a necessity. Opinions/guesses/ do not matter. However, diplomacy sometimes wrongly gets ignored so I apologize if I have offended anyone. In the course of a circuit design, the design engineer is critiqued by his peers (and critiques his peers' designs also) in several formal design reviews. This process is mandatory to find design errors/mistakes/shortcomings. You have to learn to deal with the facts without being personally insulted.

Anandtech is a HUGE commercial site and should not even have published a pathetic joke review like this!
On the other hand, silentpcreview is more of a hobbyist site and does not have the financial means to do a thorough report. In fact, silent mentioned that they would have liked to be able to vary the input mains 115/230 ACV input (simulating transient conditions too) but did not have the equipment. This shows that they recognize the importance of this test. Anandtech did NOT.

Following is a appropriate quote from the techreport.com comments section concerning their report :
"It's a real shame when kids write hardware reviews without knowing what they're doing. The lemmings rush out and buy THE WINNER and mfr's decide not to bother supporting the enthusiast community with review samples because the results are pure bullshit - why should they give out free samples when the results are a crap shoot?"

In fact, none of the on-line reviews that I have seen (including Uncle Tom's) produce any meaningful, conclusive, valid quality/noise/performance/evaluation test data.
This is because too many absolutely necessary factors/tests/analysis have been omitted that are required for a professionally done test. This is kind of like telling a story but omitting a selected detail which would change the whole meaning of the story.

One example: No analysis was done to determine the maximum heat sink temperature for a desired MTBF. To calculate this, we need to know the junction temperature specs for the high power semiconductor devices and the power dissipation of each. Then, we need to know the thermal resistance from junction to heat sink to calculate junction temperature. Alternatively, we could measure the case temperatures & dissipation of the active devices and do the calculations. Since these numbers will be different for different circuit designs, measured heat sink temperature data is meaningless since we do not know required/desired maximum heat sink temperatures. Thus, the measured cooling fan noise levels are also meaningless since we have no CFM requirements which would directly influence noise levels.

Other examples: Dynamic control of input AC Voltages & DC output currents over the full temperature operating range vs output voltage levels/transients, and ripple are not tested.
Also, no description of over voltage or over current protection design details.

Also, the importance of the PS "side fans" is not stressed nearly enough! The most important factor for convection cooling a heat sink is the velocity of the air and the turbulence it creates. This increases the Reynolds number which increases the convection coefficient. A fan blowing directly onto the heat sink will provide MUCH better/efficient cooling than the same CFM fan mounted as an exit air fan. Of course the heat sink design has to be optimized for airflow from this side direction.

A few of external factors are very important also:
1) Most folks have no idea of the amount of power (or current draw for each individual voltage) required by their system. DC clamp on ammeters are available for about $100 now and can be used to measure this. What total power is typically required for a system with a 9800 video card, several HDs and several CDR/DVDRs & 3GHz CPU?? If you do the measurements, you will see that it takes a stomping system to go much above 250W. Current draws from each individual voltage are generally more important than total power for comparison to PS capabilities.

2) How is the case cooled? Do we use the PS to cool the case or do we use several quiet low RPM case fans to provide a lot of cool case air? Obviously the PS requirements are COMPLETELY different for these two conditions since PS input air temperatures will be MUCH different.

3) Have we calculated case cooling air CFM requirements to minimize the PS air input temperature?
Simplified Equation at room temp and sea level:
Air Temp Rise (Deg C) = 1.7 times Watts/CFM
A couple of 80 mm L1As (24CFM) and 200W will produce about 7 Deg C air temp rise into PS. Thus, we may desire to mount one of the fans to blow air directly toward the PS input and CPU fan as well.

Design engineers hate to write test procedures, but most have to do it anyhow. For a PS test like this, several weeks would be required to do the analysis, write the procedure, and develop a required test equipment list. So, it may be too much to expect valid data obtained on a tight test budget.

If you have read this far, you have way too much stamina. Buy a 550 Watt PS and turn the fan speed down and live with it.
 

devers

Senior member
Jul 6, 2003
202
0
0
Originally posted by: JPSJPS


If you have read this far, you have way too much stamina. Buy a 550 Watt PS and turn the fan speed down and live with it.

lol

Re: diplomacy, if you were referring to my post, I didn't mean to imply that you were being mean or anything. S'all good. I think your comments will help to improve future AT articles in this area, so I appreciate them too. I was just complimenting Kris on his ability to take the criticism in stride. Most people, reading blunt criticism, tend to either get defensive, pissed, depressed, or just to say "eh whatever, ass", thus negating any potentially positive effects the critiquers comments could've had. Luckily, Kris is more mature than that, at least on the surface . So, your criticism can still have the intended effect, which is a good thing, because it appears you have some very valid things to say.
 

JPSJPS

Senior member
Apr 17, 2001
216
0
0
Originally posted by: devers
Re: diplomacy, if you were referring to my post, I didn't mean to imply that you were being mean or anything. ... I was just complimenting Kris on his ability to take the criticism in stride
When I read my posts later they sound kind of mean but that is not what I intended so that is why I apologized.

YEP - Kris really proves he is a nice guy because of the reason you stated. He told me that monitors are the field of his expertise and he got "nominated" to do this PS Roundup. It has to be tough to take on a task like that when you are not super familiar with the subject.

The problem here was caused by Anandtech management who should have given Kris some technical backup and help. Obviously he did a lot of dedicated work.
 

Dug

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2000
3,469
6
81
JPSJPS- Why don't you start your own site and do a power supply review instead of complaining so much. You are so worried about the details that the general public doesn't care about. Maybe there's a few members that want more details, but that will always be the case. The articles have to meet the demands of the masses which it does just fine, without completly boring everyone. All the tests and extra questions you pose, don't really matter. If a power supply works, it does. If it doesn't work, it doesn't. Why waste so much time contemplating it?
The power supplies that were rated better in the review, do rate better within the hardware community. Is that a coincidence? No, so the review just confirms what others have found by trial and error.
The roundup gets the job done and I appreciate the efforts taken to write it.

 

JPSJPS

Senior member
Apr 17, 2001
216
0
0
Originally posted by: Dug
JPSJPS- Why don't you start your own site and do a power supply review instead of complaining so much.
LOL - I did NOT complain but in fact pointed out the many important technical mistakes in the review. In fact, Kris made several changes to some of his worst errors after I and others posted. You probably did not see the original and and you would have not understood those errors anyhow.
You are so worried about the details that the general public doesn't care about. Maybe there's a few members that want more details, but that will always be the case. The articles have to meet the demands of the masses which it does just fine, without completely boring everyone. All the tests and extra questions you pose, don't really matter.
NOPE - You are equating yourself with the general public/masses but most of those folks are smarter than you. This is demonstrated by the many critical posts on this thread. Most readers of Anandtech have some technical knowledge/abilities and realize that the details like output voltage tolerances are MOST important. Kris still has a problem understanding these details. The details are not important to you because you do not have a clue what they mean.
However, the if a power supply works, it does. If it doesn't work, it doesn't. Why waste so much time contemplating it?
Most supplies in use today are the generic junk type and WORK WELL. That is not good enough for many of us. That is why detailed reviews like this are popular although they mean nothing to you. The devil is in the details.
The power supplies that were rated better in the review, do rate better within the hardware community. Is that a coincidence? No, so the review just confirms what others have found by trial and error.
I don't follow that statement. If you are satisfied by the popular votes of the "hardware community" based upon their opinions then go for it. Most of the supplies used by the "hardware community" are inexpensive generic supplies in inexpensive cases or store bought computers and they rate and work very well Obviously, upgraded supplies will be rated well too but some of us would like to rate them based upon factual details rather than opinions/guesses.
The roundup gets the job done and I appreciate the efforts taken to write it.
I fully understand why you believe that!
 

uart

Member
May 26, 2000
174
0
0
I?m also extremely interested in the unexpected ?interference? test results.. With most test runs getting an average of around 3 to 4 flipped bits, and almost all test runs scoring more than zero memory errors I am utterly amazed. Surely this means that if any such system were ?suspended to RAM? for six hours, regardless of which PSU was used, it would be almost guaranteed to subsequently misbehave.

We just took one test, and let it write as much addressable space as possible (as opposed to just a few bits). We then just inserted a sleep() for six hours and let the test count the errors.

I?m no expert on dynamic ram, but is the probability of an error actually increased while it is ?sleeping?. I?m not exactly sure of what you mean by ?sleep? in this context (exactly what state the RAM is in) but I?m assuming that the normal dram refresh cycles are still running. (LOL otherwise you?d loose a whole lot more then just a few bits).

So why should any bits be flipped, I really don?t get it. Why would you not get the same or even greater number of bit errors over the same time period if you were continually working the ram as opposed to having it ?sleep?? In any case surely some areas of a computers RAM must retain their data for more than 6 hours, what about the interrupt tables, it could be static for the entire uptime of the OS, maybe months or more ? how could these bit flips be tolerated.?

Are there any dynamic ram experts here who can elaborate on this, it seems weird to me.
 

Dug

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2000
3,469
6
81
NOPE - You are equating yourself with the general public/masses but most of those folks are smarter than you. This is demonstrated by the many critical posts on this thread. Most readers of Anandtech have some technical knowledge/abilities and realize that the details like output voltage tolerances are MOST important. Kris still has a problem understanding these details. The details are not important to you because you do not have a clue what they mean.

Demonstrated by the many critical posts? Don't make me laugh. Out of the 117975 registered users there's a total of 6 posts wanting more info? And out of those 6, 2 were just complaints, and 2 just wanted to clarify what was written. There were more posts on noise. So tell me, how did you come to your conclusion.

You can get into more detail in any review. I don't want to spend my life worring about the details. I want to know what works, which goes true for 95% of the questions asked in the hardware forum.

Example- I could care less about the code written for the bios in a motherboard, I just want to know how well it overclocks and how stable it is. I don't see one review going into the actual details of why the code in one bios is better than the other. Which by the way, I'm sure you have no clue about. Instead the reviews focus on what gets the job done. To some this might be important, but to most it isn't, otherwise we would see more reviews with these details.

Do you see any power regulation tests on usb? No. No one cares, they just want to know what works. But yet it is very important. The list could go on and on about details in reviews. My point is that it doesn't make me any less smarter, because I don't care about those details. It means I spend less time worrying about them and just buy what works.

Most of the supplies used by the "hardware community" are inexpensive generic supplies in inexpensive cases or store bought comp
I am referring to the Anandtech hardware community, in which case it's a mix of generic and higher end power supplies. If you are also referring to the Anandtech hardware community, then you are contradicting yourself.
 

JPSJPS

Senior member
Apr 17, 2001
216
0
0
Originally posted by: uart
I?m also extremely interested in the unexpected ?interference? test results.. With most test runs getting an average of around 3 to 4 flipped bits, and almost all test runs scoring more than zero memory errors I am utterly amazed. Surely this means that if any such system were ?suspended to RAM? for six hours, regardless of which PSU was used, it would be almost guaranteed to subsequently misbehave.

We just took one test, and let it write as much addressable space as possible (as opposed to just a few bits). We then just inserted a sleep() for six hours and let the test count the errors.

I?m no expert on dynamic ram, but is the probability of an error actually increased while it is ?sleeping?. I?m not exactly sure of what you mean by ?sleep? in this context (exactly what state the RAM is in) but I?m assuming that the normal dram refresh cycles are still running. (LOL otherwise you?d loose a whole lot more then just a few bits).

So why should any bits be flipped, I really don?t get it. Why would you not get the same or even greater number of bit errors over the same time period if you were continually working the ram as opposed to having it ?sleep?? In any case surely some areas of a computers RAM must retain their data for more than 6 hours, what about the interrupt tables, it could be static for the entire uptime of the OS, maybe months or more ? how could these bit flips be tolerated.?

Are there any dynamic ram experts here who can elaborate on this, it seems weird to me.
Obviously you have a good basic knowledge concerning dynamic RAM and how it functions in a PC. You have addressed some VERY valid, relevant issues/pionts which are well taken.
I have been retired from circuit design for six years so I am NOT an expert since I have not done any designs using this type of dynamic RAM. Back in the "Dark Ages" dynamic RAM was sometimes controlled by an external chip providing functions similar to this Intel I/O Controller Chip:
Intel PDF File
The I/O chips performed addressing, timeing, clocks etc as well as the following two types of dynamic refresh:
1) "Auto" refresh during normal PC operation concurrent with memory performing normal reads/writes.
2) "Self" refresh when the PC is not operating (Sleep) but "Keep Alive" voltage is still applied to the Memory Controller, DDR memory, etc to retain memory information.

The whole "Interference Test" and test data seems "weird" to me also.
How could non ECC systems operate weeks and months without "misbehave" memory error crashes"?
Most DOS utilities from boot disks (Floppy or CDR) write to RAM and operate from there. How can disk imaging, troubleshooting utilities (like memtest) etc. safely function without memory errors? I plan to visit the Microsoft news groups and try to get an answer to your/my questions. Maybe I have missed something basic and obvious.

Now uart, here is a question for you:
What are the chances that a guy with virtually no technical ability can develop a VALID problem/test that has been missed by every worldwide hardware and software company?








 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0
Originally posted by: Dug

Demonstrated by the many critical posts? Don't make me laugh. Out of the 117975 registered users there's a total of 6 posts wanting more info? And out of those 6, 2 were just complaints, and 2 just wanted to clarify what was written. There were more posts on noise. So tell me, how did you come to your conclusion.

The perception that AT is now a second-rate site is fairly widespread by now. There are 100 sites for morons who don't know the difference between CAS and RAS. AT didn't have to stoop to becoming one of them.
 

uart

Member
May 26, 2000
174
0
0
Originally posted by: JPSJPS

Now uart, here is a question for you:
What are the chances that a guy with virtually no technical ability can develop a VALID problem/test that has been missed by every worldwide hardware and software company?

Well JPSJPS I truly understand where you're coming from but I guess I'm just a slightly softer more gentle person than yourself . I try not to be so brutally harsh on people, especially when they?ve obviously done a lot of work and tried very hard. (I used to be a teacher BTW, so I guess I have to be a little like that).

I must agree though that it certainly wasn't the sort of review that I would have liked to see. To have 13 pages of what was essentially a regurgitation of manufactures claimed ratings was disappointing in the extreme. In truth I would not have even bothered reading on past this had it not been that someone had recommended it to me as a good read.

I agree that it would be quite a difficult job to do a truly thorough PSU test, but I?d sure like to see one. In particular, some of the things that I?d really like to see are :

1. Oscilloscope traces (both DC coupled and AC coupled) of the output voltages rails under specified conditions (preferably for several input voltage levels and some reasonable but high output current level).

2. Some ?load dump transient? traces showing the response of a voltage rail to an abrupt change (both increase and decrease) in load current.

3. A ?brownout? test to see how many milliseconds of power interruption that the system can ?ride out? with a given PSU.

4. Estimates of actual device temperatures at a given continuous load level.

5. Some efficiency tests.

6. The inclusion of some cheap generic PSU?s in the test for a reference point.

PS. Referring back to the issue of bits being corrupted over time (6 hours) for memory that is left ?static?. I mentioned interrupt tables before as an example of critical data that is static in memory for the entire OS uptime. I forget to also mention shadowed ROM?s, they would be similar. I?m sure there are lots of other examples, some others were mentioned by JPSJPS. So I tend to think that there was something wrong with either the system tested or the methodology.
 

clay123

Member
Mar 31, 2003
34
0
0
I would like to see how my Raidmax 500watt stacks up against others in the next roundup. It should have been in this roundup, but i guess thats to much to ask.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |