>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:48:03 -0600, DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> I've blown half a dozen of the cheapo ones before learning my lesson,
>> virtually always they died when there was unstable power coming in from
>> the mains. I've yet to lose a "name brand" (my desktop is Antec, my
>> servers are something else, I forget what off-hand, but some of them
>> have been going 5-6 years)
>
>The Novell server where I used to work had a failed PSU in 1995. It was a
>name brand that came with the server which originally was a 386. I
>replaced it with a no-name and it's still running today after 10 years, as
>is the drives from the same time frame. BTW, If you had bad power coming
>in, you should have fixed that with a regulated UPS. Changing the PSU
>didn't fix anything. It only masked the problem. That's if I believed you
>actually lost 6 PSU's to this, which I don't.:-)
Actually, some PSU do a pretty good job of dealing with bad
power. They're Active PFC types. They're no miracle cure
for really bad power, but then a computer is not the only
equipment that would suffer from really bad power, the whole
'site would need something that benefits the system(s) as
well.
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:13:59 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Wes Newell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:48:03 -0600, DevilsPGD wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've blown half a dozen of the cheapo ones before learning my lesson,
>>>virtually always they died when there was unstable power coming in from
>>>the mains. I've yet to lose a "name brand" (my desktop is Antec, my
>>>servers are something else, I forget what off-hand, but some of them
>>>have been going 5-6 years)
>>
>>
>> The Novell server where I used to work had a failed PSU in 1995. It was a
>> name brand that came with the server which originally was a 386. I
>> replaced it with a no-name and it's still running today after 10 years,
>
>I hate to tell you this but trying to make judgments about arbitrary 'no
>names' today based on an unspecified PSU bought 10 years ago is nonsense
>even beyond anecdotal stories being close to useless.
Even IF it were applicable, it ignores an important issue-
that modern system have potential for over 2X the peak
current requirements but typical generics haven't 2X the
current potential. Many just install a larger fuse!
>Sorry, unlike others, I only dissimnate facts. If you care to look it up.
>There's reviews on either tomshardware or anandtech that I took this
>info from. It shows that many name brand units wouldn't put up the max
>output, with some even blowing up. So go look it up.
Ever wonder why they don't even BOTHER to test the generics?
If these $18 PSU were such a great deal, don't you imagine
the first thing they'd do is try to send shockwaves through
the computer industry by demonstrating them doing well?
Historically, Tomshardware has had this kind of
sensationalistic coverage, if they could claim as much they
certainly would.
>> The point was clear as a bell. The supposed 'watts' on the el-cheapos
>> isn't what they'll do.
>>
>Some will, some won't. Just like name brands. It's really doesn't matter.
You continue to guess.
Open the generic, and part-by-part, assess it. Look at the
specs, size and quality of components. Your "idea" of what
matters has no basis whatsoever, except that you ran them in
systems that only needed a fraction of the power the
generics claimed they could provide- a fraction < 1/2.
>I don't care if you have the cheapest PSU made or a $200 PC Power &
>cooling PSU, running the system without a UPS is just plain stupid unless
>you don't care about your system
Actually, the reports I've seen from people suffering
failures suggest just the opposite, that poor PSU fail a LOT
more often than systems without an UPS.
>
>>> That's muxh more important than a name brand PSU.
>>
>> Hogwash
>
>It's not hogwash when you're doing a critical task and power fails and you
>loose the data and maybe a few hundred hours work.
If you have worked for a few hundred hours without saving
your data, perhaps it's good that you lose it- and then
learn to do so.
Citing a review where a PSU would fail if it puts out over
90% of it's rated capacity, is an even more significant
reason to choose a GOOD name-brand instead of a generic that
can't even BEGIN TO RUN THE TEST AT ALL because it is so
grossly overrated.
Did you catch what I just wrote?
You can't EVEN RUN the tests Tom's Hardware did on most
generics because the can't even sustain that wattage for
long enough to start the test, let alone fail later. That
is a very significant difference.
>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:42:43 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>
>> Your cheap $18 PSU has low amperage on the 12 volt rail compared to the
>> Antec (and amperage is more critical than rock steady voltage).
>
>Didn't check and don't care. At 24A it's more than adequate.
Now if only it really was 24A. It's not.
Go ahead and hook up a .5 Ohm load to it, then tell us if it
can run for even a week.
>
>> Your cheap $18 PSU has no feedback protection, and does not stabilize
>> for several *SECONDS* after powering up.
>
>I'm not even concerned if this is true or not.
Of course not, because you're oblivious to anything but
"cheapest". I"m sure those who have had hardware fail from
generics, are really happy you are not concerned.
>So now you want to make it personal with name calling? First, my car has
>about 15K miles on it. And second, you are just another moron that spouts
>out crap that you don't agree with even if you can't offer any real
>first hand proof. I suspect the only thing you use your hand for is done
>in bedroom upon yourself. I think you've been just a little benighted.
I'm not so sure that above response is any better than
name-calling, shouldn't we just stick to the topic? IE-
whether you have actually demonstrated these generics can
come even remotely close to the same output per label as
presumed good name-brands? What about fraud? Do you like
it when companies try to cheat people with fake ratings?
You're supporting it.
> You can't EVEN RUN the tests Tom's Hardware did on most
> generics because the can't even sustain that wattage for
> long enough to start the test, let alone fail later. That
> is a very significant difference.
>
Bullshit, do you have data to back this up or you just speaking through
your flappy anus mouth?
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:10:39 GMT, High <789@123.456> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>
>> You can't EVEN RUN the tests Tom's Hardware did on most
>> generics because the can't even sustain that wattage for
>> long enough to start the test, let alone fail later. That
>> is a very significant difference.
>>
>Bullshit, do you have data to back this up or you just speaking through
>your flappy anus mouth?
Thanks for trolling by!
Yes, the data is EVERYWHERE.
What better proof that to observe it yourself? Buy that $18
600W generic then load it to what (would be) a 600W output
then see if it keeps the rails in spec. If it can't do
that, the test can't start.
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:03:00 +0000, Leythos wrote:
> Most UPS's don't condition the power until you get into the more
> expensive units - some only kick in when you are above/below a certain
> voltage, better units will condition the power full time.
>
At one point in time this was correct, but I think the majority of todays
UPS's have a regulated output, even the cheaper models. I do know that
cheap model APC's (Back-Ups) are still unregulated, but I think most
others have switched to regulated output. Again indicating that buying
name brand isn't always best. My cheap very old Powercom 650va unit is
regulated as is the Belkin I have. I've aslo got an APC Back-Ups-400 that
is not regulated. The only thing connected to is a monitor. At the time I
bought the powercom it was about a third of the price of an APC that was
unregulated. I didn't buy the APC. It was found left in my rent house
with dead batteries.
kony wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:13:59 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:48:03 -0600, DevilsPGD wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've blown half a dozen of the cheapo ones before learning my lesson,
>>>>virtually always they died when there was unstable power coming in from
>>>>the mains. I've yet to lose a "name brand" (my desktop is Antec, my
>>>>servers are something else, I forget what off-hand, but some of them
>>>>have been going 5-6 years)
>>>
>>>
>>>The Novell server where I used to work had a failed PSU in 1995. It was a
>>>name brand that came with the server which originally was a 386. I
>>>replaced it with a no-name and it's still running today after 10 years,
>>
>>I hate to tell you this but trying to make judgments about arbitrary 'no
>>names' today based on an unspecified PSU bought 10 years ago is nonsense
>>even beyond anecdotal stories being close to useless.
>
>
> Even IF it were applicable, it ignores an important issue-
> that modern system have potential for over 2X the peak
> current requirements but typical generics haven't 2X the
> current potential. Many just install a larger fuse!
Yes. That's what I meant about "10 years ago." Virtually nothing in the
computer world is the same as "10 years ago" so it's meaningless.
>>Sorry, unlike others, I only dissimnate facts. If you care to look it up.
>>There's reviews on either tomshardware or anandtech that I took this
>>info from. It shows that many name brand units wouldn't put up the max
>>output, with some even blowing up. So go look it up.
>
> Ever wonder why they don't even BOTHER to test the generics?
No. I have an idea why they don't. It doesn't pay them. It cost them.
> If these $18 PSU were such a great deal, don't you imagine
> the first thing they'd do is try to send shockwaves through
> the computer industry by demonstrating them doing well?
No, because it would hurt their income in terms of ads mostly.
>>> The point was clear as a bell. The supposed 'watts' on the el-cheapos
>>> isn't what they'll do.
>>>
>>Some will, some won't. Just like name brands. It's really doesn't matter.
>
> You continue to guess.
I'm not guessing at anything. It really doesn't matter.
> Open the generic, and part-by-part, assess it. Look at the
> specs, size and quality of components. Your "idea" of what
> matters has no basis whatsoever, except that you ran them in
> systems that only needed a fraction of the power the
> generics claimed they could provide- a fraction < 1/2.
>
Even if that were true, so what. I'm not saying the cheap PSU's are better
built than the more expensive models although that's not unheard of. I'm
saying one doesn't have to spend a fortune on high dollar name brand PSU's
to get a PSU that will work. It's really that simple.
>
>>I don't care if you have the cheapest PSU made or a $200 PC Power &
>>cooling PSU, running the system without a UPS is just plain stupid
>>unless you don't care about your system
>
> Actually, the reports I've seen from people suffering failures suggest
> just the opposite, that poor PSU fail a LOT more often than systems
> without an UPS.
>
Any PSU, cheap or expensive will fail more often with bad power. I don't
use a UPS to protect my PSU or even computer though. I use it to prevent
data loss or corruption. The added protection is just a bonus.
>>Here's the most current, with 6 out of 19 name brand PSU's failing the
>>test.
>>http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20...sstest-28.html
>>
>>So who's really dishing out BS?:-)
>
> You.
>
Not so. I didn't claim that name brands would put out their max power
rating. He did. This just proves him wrong.
> Citing a review where a PSU would fail if it puts out over 90% of it's
> rated capacity, is an even more significant reason to choose a GOOD
> name-brand instead of a generic that can't even BEGIN TO RUN THE TEST AT
> ALL because it is so grossly overrated.
>
> Did you catch what I just wrote?
Yes, and I know for a fact that you've seen that I've always suggested to
buy a higher rating than needed when buying a cheap PSU just in case you
need that conpensation. i also suggest this when buying a name brand for
the simple fact that not all Brands will put out therir advertised rating
either. A FACT that you seem to want to ignore expect when it comes to the
cheap PSU's.
> You can't EVEN RUN the tests Tom's Hardware did on most generics because
> the can't even sustain that wattage for long enough to start the test,
> let alone fail later. That is a very significant difference.
So you've tried to perform these test? I think not. Just more BS. Besides
the test for meeting max ratings aren't even the point. The point is that
cheap PSU's will work, and work well. That you want everyone to believe it
will cause you nothing but problems is what is BS. And I've proven that to
my stisfaction.
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:33:49 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Hmmm.... I need 400W, so I buy a 400Antec that will put out
>>400W for say $50, or I buy a 600W for $18 that will only put out 550W.
>
> This is where you keep going wrong, time after time it's
> been pointed out to you but you don't even do the testing
> necessary to draw a conclusion. Your $18 pseudo-"600W" PSU
> _CANNOT_ put out 550W. You're making up nonsense and have
> no evidence whatsoever that it can even put out 400W
> long-term. There are of course kids out there that draw
> ridiculous conclusions akin to "I ran a 500W car amp from
> one therefore it's fine"... which is fine if that car amp
> were using 500W continuous power but that's not how audio
> works, it wouldn't be listenable at all if the peaks were
> all chopped @ 500W.
>
And you keep missing the f*cking point. I don't care if the 600W PSU only
puts out 350W. It works, and that's what I bought it for. it's been
working for 18 fricking months 24/7 and I expect it to work another damn
3-10years. You don't know crap about the unit, you don't own one. Yet
you're telling me it won't put out 550W. I can't tell you what it will put
out, and I really don't give a rats ass. But it's been running this system
without problems for this long. A $1000 PSU couldn't have done any better.
Now that's the facts and that's the fricking point. Damn you people are
dense.
> Yeah, you want to claim systems that need roughly 100-250W
> total output are a test of a so-called 600W PSU.
Let's see, my system consist of 4 HD's, a DVD burner, 1 floppy, 1 LS120, A
Jetway S755MAX Athlon 64 MB, a 3000+ A64 CPU (overclocked to 2330Mhz at
1.70v), 512K of PC3700ram, and case fans, video card, and 3 USB devices
which also draw power from the USB. And you call me ignorant. You are just
spreading more BS or you are a complete idiot thinking it would draw less
that 250W.
I'm done with you again. You've already proven to me that you are just BS.
Wes Newell wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:21:33 +0000, kony wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:33:49 GMT, Wes Newell
>><w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hmmm.... I need 400W, so I buy a 400Antec that will put out
>>>400W for say $50, or I buy a 600W for $18 that will only put out 550W.
>>
>>This is where you keep going wrong, time after time it's
>>been pointed out to you but you don't even do the testing
>>necessary to draw a conclusion. Your $18 pseudo-"600W" PSU
>>_CANNOT_ put out 550W. You're making up nonsense and have
>>no evidence whatsoever that it can even put out 400W
>>long-term. There are of course kids out there that draw
>>ridiculous conclusions akin to "I ran a 500W car amp from
>>one therefore it's fine"... which is fine if that car amp
>>were using 500W continuous power but that's not how audio
>>works, it wouldn't be listenable at all if the peaks were
>>all chopped @ 500W.
>>
>
> And you keep missing the f*cking point.
No it's you who keep missing the "f*cking point" which was the el-cheapos
do not put out the power they say they're rated for. Whether you 'care' or
not is irrelevant to that being true.
> I don't care if the 600W PSU only
> puts out 350W.
Yeah? Then why did you buy a cheap "600 Watt" (sic) PSU instead of a
cheaper "400 watt" (sic) PSU?
> It works, and that's what I bought it for. it's been
> working for 18 fricking months 24/7 and I expect it to work another damn
> 3-10years. You don't know crap about the unit, you don't own one. Yet
> you're telling me it won't put out 550W. I can't tell you what it will put
> out, and I really don't give a rats ass.
Then there's no reason for you to flap your admittedly clueless gums about
it because the entire point was that the el-cheapo 'ultra-watt' PSUs don't
put out the rated power and not whether you have one that's "been working
for 18 fricking months" without the slightest idea how much power is being
used.
> But it's been running this system
> without problems for this long. A $1000 PSU couldn't have done any better.
> Now that's the facts and that's the fricking point.
No, that isn't the 'fricking point'. The 'fricking point' was the one I
posted that the el-cheapos are generally not capable of the power output
emblazoned on the box.
And that your system might work says nothing about whether the next one
will and there's no way to know because there's no useful specification for
the stupid things.
And that's why you're "lucky," because you haven't got the slightest idea
how much power your system needs and no idea how much that PSU can provide.
> Damn you people are
> dense.
I feel sorry for the folks who don't know any better and naively expect the
things to do what the label says but not for you.
Here, give me a few minutes to scrape the 300 off this thing and paste an
800 watt sticker on it. You'll love the 'big number' and "really don't give
a rats ass" what it'll put out.
In message <pan.2005.09.06.19.33.02.592407@TAKEOUTverizon.net > Wes
Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:48:03 -0600, DevilsPGD wrote:
>
>> I've blown half a dozen of the cheapo ones before learning my lesson,
>> virtually always they died when there was unstable power coming in from
>> the mains. I've yet to lose a "name brand" (my desktop is Antec, my
>> servers are something else, I forget what off-hand, but some of them
>> have been going 5-6 years)
>
>The Novell server where I used to work had a failed PSU in 1995. It was a
>name brand that came with the server which originally was a 386. I
>replaced it with a no-name and it's still running today after 10 years, as
>is the drives from the same time frame. BTW, If you had bad power coming
>in, you should have fixed that with a regulated UPS. Changing the PSU
>didn't fix anything. It only masked the problem. That's if I believed you
>actually lost 6 PSU's to this, which I don't.:-)
If you want to pay shipping, I can ship you three of them -- We have an
annual computer recycling drive here where you drop off used computer
components, good or bad, they reuse what they can, recycle the rest, and
they haven't gone out to be recycled yet.
I've currently got 8 running machines in the house, 4 of which are being
used as servers, and probably another dozen partially or totally
disassembled due to some random component failure and my lack of time
and energy to find the working components and build out some usable
machines.
--
I understand what all the individual words mean despite the misspellings;
I just don't understand what they mean in that particular order.
"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:11ht6jn839n7i23@corp.supernews.com...
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:34:20 +0000, kony wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>
>>>>So who's really dishing out BS?:-)
>>>
>>>You.
>>>
>>
>> Not so. I didn't claim that name brands would put out their max power
>> rating. He did.
>
> I made no such claim.
>
>> This just proves him wrong.
>
> And the article made no such proof.
I purchased one of these http://www.ocztechnology.com/product...m_power_supply
because I needed a PSU with a 24pin power connector and was the only one I
could find locally at my nearby shop. They very clearly state the peak and
normal output and it works flawlessly. It does what it says it does. I got
the 520w (620 peak). I also like the idea of being able to use only the
number of 12v rails I need and not have to tie-wrap up all the extra
clutter. Tom's testing is asking PSUs to do what they are not meant to do
and if you ran the test several times with the same PSUs it may be different
every time.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:lcdsh19oujokg6jkeplqnf5agbg3bca87u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:21:54 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:42:43 -1000, NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>> Your cheap $18 PSU has low amperage on the 12 volt rail compared to the
>>> Antec (and amperage is more critical than rock steady voltage).
>>
>>Didn't check and don't care. At 24A it's more than adequate.
>
> Now if only it really was 24A. It's not.
> Go ahead and hook up a .5 Ohm load to it, then tell us if it
> can run for even a week.
>
>
>>
>>> Your cheap $18 PSU has no feedback protection, and does not stabilize
>>> for several *SECONDS* after powering up.
>>
>>I'm not even concerned if this is true or not.
>
> Of course not, because you're oblivious to anything but
> "cheapest". I"m sure those who have had hardware fail from
> generics, are really happy you are not concerned.
>
>>So now you want to make it personal with name calling? First, my car has
>>about 15K miles on it. And second, you are just another moron that spouts
>>out crap that you don't agree with even if you can't offer any real
>>first hand proof. I suspect the only thing you use your hand for is done
>>in bedroom upon yourself. I think you've been just a little benighted.
>
> I'm not so sure that above response is any better than
> name-calling, shouldn't we just stick to the topic? IE-
> whether you have actually demonstrated these generics can
> come even remotely close to the same output per label as
> presumed good name-brands? What about fraud? Do you like
> it when companies try to cheat people with fake ratings?
> You're supporting it.
Or whether you have demonstrated that they can't. You have proved nothing
either. What about fraud? You have provided nothing to back-up your claims
so by your definition you are a fraud.
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:01 GMT, "Dave" <dave2972@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>Or whether you have demonstrated that they can't. You have proved nothing
>either. What about fraud? You have provided nothing to back-up your claims
>so by your definition you are a fraud.
I have participated in this forum for a long time and I can attest to
the fact that the poster with the handle "kony" is very credible.
I have challenged him on a number of occasions in the spirit of making
sure what he was saying, and he has always come thru with the straight
facts.
I think you owe him an apology. If this forum and that poster are not
to your liking, then I recommend you visit
<comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage>
where there are plenty of trolls and their sock puppets to entertain
you.
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:01 GMT, "Dave" <dave2972@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>
>>Or whether you have demonstrated that they can't. You have proved nothing
>>either. What about fraud? You have provided nothing to back-up your claims
>>so by your definition you are a fraud.
>
> I have participated in this forum for a long time and I can attest to
> the fact that the poster with the handle "kony" is very credible.
>
And I've posted in here a long time too. My credibility can be determined
by the links in my sig line. That doesn't mean much as far as who's
right.:-) In a sense, we are both right. I'll admit that spending more
money for a name brand PSU gives you a better chance of getting a
better PSU. That's the point he is making. My point is simply that there
isn't any danger in using a cheap no-name PSU as long as it's output fits
the bill. IOW's, works reliably. Chosen properly, they will and that's a
fact I've proven over the last 25 years, and literally hundreds of PSU's
for systems I've built. Most reasons for PSU failure is either bad power
source or using a PSU that is overloaded. it has very little to do with
the name stamped on the case. I think I've bought maybe 1 or 2 well
known name brand PSU's over the last 20 years and they faired no better or
worst then the noname ones I've bought with one exception that I've
already mentioned (where the PSU cost $2 ea). Every system I've built for
myself over the last ten years still has the PSU working and they were all
cheap. The on exception to that was caused by myself by being lazy and
sticking a screwdriver into the running PSU to try and get the fan running
and a slip caused a big bang. Still the PSU was the only thing damaged,
not the computer, and not the ups. I'll garauntee there are many millions
more systems out there using cheap PSU's than there are using name brand.
If the cheap PSU's were so bad, there wouldn't be. Saying you need a name
brand PSU for your system is no different than saying you need a $100,000
car to drive across town when the speed limit is 60MPH.
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:01 GMT, "Dave"
<dave2972@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Or whether you have demonstrated that they can't. You have proved nothing
>either. What about fraud? You have provided nothing to back-up your claims
>so by your definition you are a fraud.
No, you mean you are not satisfied that I"ve demonstrated it
because I didn't throw up a website review. At the time it
was fairly obvious just looking at it that it could not meet
the label, so I didn't create cute little GIFs with
motherboard monitor or take pics of meters and cabled PSU.
That doesn't change the fact that they aren't capable.
No matter what I presented somebody would try to nitpick it
because they have no common sense, do not understand even
the very basic fundamentals of a SMPS. It is ludicrous to
argue about a physical (computer) component comprised of
parts that by the very part manufacturers' specs, make it
impossible for the unit to do what the label claims.
So, since there are those foolish enough to guess, I suggest
those so "sure" about it should do the test themselves, a
valid test that has to satisfy them (their egos) since they
did the test themselves.
Wes Newell wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:12:41 +0000, Bob wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:01 GMT, "Dave" <dave2972@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>Or whether you have demonstrated that they can't. You have proved nothing
>>>either. What about fraud? You have provided nothing to back-up your claims
>>>so by your definition you are a fraud.
>>
>>I have participated in this forum for a long time and I can attest to
>>the fact that the poster with the handle "kony" is very credible.
>>
>
> And I've posted in here a long time too. My credibility can be determined
> by the links in my sig line. That doesn't mean much as far as who's
> right.:-) In a sense, we are both right. I'll admit that spending more
> money for a name brand PSU gives you a better chance of getting a
> better PSU. That's the point he is making. My point is simply that there
> isn't any danger in using a cheap no-name PSU as long as it's output fits
> the bill. IOW's, works reliably.
There I will have to disagree with you. I have had more than one
"cheap" power supply go up with a literal bang, often taking out the
motherboard with it. I also spent several months tracking down a
intermittent problem with a computer refusing to come back on after it
was powered off. After replacing the generic power supply in the
computer with a PC Power and Cooling unit that was several years old at
the time, but the same rating, I have not had a single problem with the
PC since then. And yes, I have had good luck with some generic power
supplies, but I have also seen more of them fail "spectacularly" than
the more expensive "name" brands.
> Chosen properly, they will and that's a
> fact I've proven over the last 25 years, and literally hundreds of PSU's
> for systems I've built. Most reasons for PSU failure is either bad power
> source or using a PSU that is overloaded. it has very little to do with
> the name stamped on the case. I think I've bought maybe 1 or 2 well
> known name brand PSU's over the last 20 years and they faired no better or
> worst then the noname ones I've bought with one exception that I've
> already mentioned (where the PSU cost $2 ea).
I have been about the same experience and have found that name brand
equipment is usually worth the extra money in the extra longevity and
fewer problems.
> Every system I've built for
> myself over the last ten years still has the PSU working and they were all
> cheap. The on exception to that was caused by myself by being lazy and
> sticking a screwdriver into the running PSU to try and get the fan running
> and a slip caused a big bang. Still the PSU was the only thing damaged,
> not the computer, and not the ups. I'll garauntee there are many millions
> more systems out there using cheap PSU's than there are using name brand.
> If the cheap PSU's were so bad, there wouldn't be. Saying you need a name
> brand PSU for your system is no different than saying you need a $100,000
> car to drive across town when the speed limit is 60MPH.
>
But you can't buy a Yugo and expect it to hold up as well as a BMW.
They may both do the same job, most of the time, but their lifetime and
reliability will probably be much different.
>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:12:41 +0000, Bob wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:01 GMT, "Dave" <dave2972@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>Or whether you have demonstrated that they can't. You have proved nothing
>>>either. What about fraud? You have provided nothing to back-up your claims
>>>so by your definition you are a fraud.
>>
>> I have participated in this forum for a long time and I can attest to
>> the fact that the poster with the handle "kony" is very credible.
>>
>And I've posted in here a long time too. My credibility can be determined
>by the links in my sig line. That doesn't mean much as far as who's
>right.:-) In a sense, we are both right. I'll admit that spending more
>money for a name brand PSU gives you a better chance of getting a
>better PSU. That's the point he is making. My point is simply that there
>isn't any danger in using a cheap no-name PSU as long as it's output fits
>the bill. IOW's, works reliably.
With that I agree, except for issues that can potentially
effect any system load (or lack of), things like fan
failure, or other PSU failure (or operation outside of spec,
which in itself is a large variable when the spec on the
label can't be trusted.
I would be far more willing to call them a fair compromise
if only they used better fans and had labeled capacity
closer to their true capacity. If you bought a car that
cost more for having a 6-cyinder engine, would you feel it's
ok that they only installed a 4 cyclinder so long as it
still gets you where you're going? Most people would have a
problem with that.
The alternative- A name-brand PSU spec'd reasonably, with a
better fan, with the protection circuitry. It's not much
more expensive, perhaps about $15 if you consider something
like a Sparkle 350W.
<snip>
> Saying you need a name
>brand PSU for your system is no different than saying you need a $100,000
>car to drive across town when the speed limit is 60MPH.
Hardly. It's more like saying you choose a Honda over a
Chevy Metro. There is nothing exotic about a $60-100 PSU in
a modern mid to high end system. Want exotic? Look at a
server chassis/PSU or a top of the line PC Power & Cooling
for a typical PC. That's just "stock" exotic, certainly
money talks and you can get even more expensive if you
tried.
One of the details often overlooked is that systems continue
to have ever-increasing current demands. Sometimes at the
beginning of an era, like CPU line, there may be slower
models which dip below the consumption of those they
replace, but in the here-and-now, the most popular
mid-to-high end CPU is a P4. It can use in excess of 100W
alone. It is not significant whether an older system (even
one only 18 months old) that had parts using 70% of this
figure, managed to run on "X" generic PSU. What is
significiant is whether "X" had a true output capacity
accomodating to modern parts. As already written, a
primary concern is the accuracy of the rating. What did you
think the point of a wattage rating was if not to determine
suitability for a particular use?
Michael W. Ryder wrote:
> Wes Newell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:12:41 +0000, Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:21:01 GMT, "Dave" <dave2972@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or whether you have demonstrated that they can't. You have proved
>>>> nothing either. What about fraud? You have provided nothing to
>>>> back-up your claims so by your definition you are a fraud.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have participated in this forum for a long time and I can attest to
>>> the fact that the poster with the handle "kony" is very credible.
>>>
>>
>> And I've posted in here a long time too. My credibility can be determined
>> by the links in my sig line. That doesn't mean much as far as who's
>> right.:-) In a sense, we are both right. I'll admit that spending more
>> money for a name brand PSU gives you a better chance of getting a
>> better PSU. That's the point he is making. My point is simply that there
>> isn't any danger in using a cheap no-name PSU as long as it's output fits
>> the bill. IOW's, works reliably.
>
>
>
> There I will have to disagree with you. I have had more than one
> "cheap" power supply go up with a literal bang, often taking out the
> motherboard with it. I also spent several months tracking down a
> intermittent problem with a computer refusing to come back on after it
> was powered off. After replacing the generic power supply in the
> computer with a PC Power and Cooling unit that was several years old at
> the time, but the same rating, I have not had a single problem with the
> PC since then. And yes, I have had good luck with some generic power
> supplies, but I have also seen more of them fail "spectacularly" than
> the more expensive "name" brands.
This is precisely the point about specifications and what they're for.
You've had some good luck and some bad luck but there's no way to know
which will be the case because the specifications on the el-cheapos mean
virtually nothing so it is impossible to make any rational determination of
Wes Newell's criteria "as long as it's output fits the bill." Just how does
one determine if it 'fits the bill' when the maker lies about the watts and
if they lie about that then what in God's name makes anyone think they're
suddenly 'truthful' about anything else printed on it? For that matter, why
bother with the numbers at all since they mean nothing? Just say "it's
green." Well, actually, you should get "blue."
And that's even before one gets to the reliability matter.
About all one can do, if you're just dead set on buying 'lord knows what',
is gamble that if you 'fit' it 1.5, 2, 3, or some arbitrary, pulled from
thin air, guess times what's needed then maybe it'll be enough, or hope
that maybe the liar who made that one isn't quite as big a liar as the others.
And then hope it lasts.
>> Chosen properly, they will and that's a
>> fact I've proven over the last 25 years, and literally hundreds of PSU's
>> for systems I've built. Most reasons for PSU failure is either bad power
>> source or using a PSU that is overloaded. it has very little to do with
>> the name stamped on the case. I think I've bought maybe 1 or 2 well
>> known name brand PSU's over the last 20 years and they faired no
>> better or
>> worst then the noname ones I've bought with one exception that I've
>> already mentioned (where the PSU cost $2 ea).
>
>
>
> I have been about the same experience and have found that name brand
> equipment is usually worth the extra money in the extra longevity and
> fewer problems.
>
>
>> Every system I've built for
>> myself over the last ten years still has the PSU working and they were
>> all
>> cheap. The on exception to that was caused by myself by being lazy and
>> sticking a screwdriver into the running PSU to try and get the fan
>> running
>> and a slip caused a big bang. Still the PSU was the only thing damaged,
>> not the computer, and not the ups. I'll garauntee there are many millions
>> more systems out there using cheap PSU's than there are using name brand.
>> If the cheap PSU's were so bad, there wouldn't be. Saying you need a name
>> brand PSU for your system is no different than saying you need a $100,000
>> car to drive across town when the speed limit is 60MPH.
>>
>
> But you can't buy a Yugo and expect it to hold up as well as a BMW. They
> may both do the same job, most of the time, but their lifetime and
> reliability will probably be much different.
>
Ed Medlin wrote:
> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:11ht6jn839n7i23@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:34:20 +0000, kony wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>>So who's really dishing out BS?:-)
>>>>
>>>>You.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not so. I didn't claim that name brands would put out their max power
>>>rating. He did.
>>
>>I made no such claim.
>>
>>
>>>This just proves him wrong.
>>
>>And the article made no such proof.
>
>
> I purchased one of these
> http://www.ocztechnology.com/product...m_power_supply
> because I needed a PSU with a 24pin power connector and was the only one I
> could find locally at my nearby shop. They very clearly state the peak and
> normal output and it works flawlessly. It does what it says it does. I got
> the 520w (620 peak). I also like the idea of being able to use only the
> number of 12v rails I need and not have to tie-wrap up all the extra
> clutter. Tom's testing is asking PSUs to do what they are not meant to do
> and if you ran the test several times with the same PSUs it may be different
> every time.
>
> Ed
Well, Toms leaves a number of things about the test a bit vague, accuracy
and repeatability of their measuring equipment for one and what they
calibrate it with, but it does seem that the OCZ unit should have managed
the tests it failed. Having said that, they don't say whether it 'switched
off' at 200 watts or 599.999 watts, or whether it was one particular rail
that was the problem (like, perhaps, over-current protection kicking in) or
anything else. They just say "failed."
At least they 'define' what the heck they mean by 'peak power'.
Re: Windows Slowing down from HOT CPU Help 
Linear Mode
