Need low power socket A cpu - would 'laptop' cpu be best?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I have an motherboard which takes socket A and is based on a Via 266A
chispet (FSB of 100 or 133 only).

I am running a slow Duron but want to go to an Athlon T'bred-B or a Sempron
without changing my PSU. I think might be able to do it but it will be
pretty borderline as the Athlons (or even Duron Appledbred) use about double
the 25 to 30 W of power which my Duron uses.

My question to you guys is ... could I use one of the socket A cpus designed
for laptop PC in order to reduce power consumption?

If so, then any suggestion which might be a good candidate?
21 answers Last reply
More about need power socket laptop best
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:40:50 +0100, Franklin wrote:

    > My question to you guys is ... could I use one of the socket A cpus designed
    > for laptop PC in order to reduce power consumption?
    >
    They are the same as the XP's just with a lower default vcore and clocked
    lower. I just replaced a Duron 750 with a Tbred B 2100+ at 100MHz fsb and
    it ran fine with vcore lowered to 1.50V, or maybe 1.40, don't recall. The
    PSU was only 250W. But i don't know why you don't want to replace the PSU
    as cheap as they are these days.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >> My question to you guys is ... could I use one of the socket A
    >> cpus designed for laptop PC in order to reduce power
    >> consumption?
    >>
    > They are the same as the XP's just with a lower default vcore
    > and clocked lower. I just replaced a Duron 750 with a Tbred B
    > 2100+ at 100MHz fsb and it ran fine with vcore lowered to
    > 1.50V, or maybe 1.40, don't recall. The PSU was only 250W. But
    > i don't know why you don't want to replace the PSU as cheap as
    > they are these days.


    I reckon there are too many rubbishy PSUs around:

    (1) Many of the cheaper ones are very overrated in terms of number of watts
    they can supply.

    (2) Many PSUs are too noisy for my liking and the PSUs with quieter fans
    are not so cheap and cost at least 40 UK pounds ( = $70).

    (3) I am told that poorer designs of PSU permit the mobo to get a current
    surge when the PSU fails. Better designs have a failsafe capability.

    All this costs money. I would run a mile away from those dirt-cheap deals.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:04:32 +0100, Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com>
    wrote:

    >Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >>> My question to you guys is ... could I use one of the socket A
    >>> cpus designed for laptop PC in order to reduce power
    >>> consumption?

    >> They are the same as the XP's just with a lower default vcore
    >> and clocked lower. I just replaced a Duron 750 with a Tbred B
    >> 2100+ at 100MHz fsb and it ran fine with vcore lowered to
    >> 1.50V, or maybe 1.40, don't recall. The PSU was only 250W. But
    >> i don't know why you don't want to replace the PSU as cheap as
    >> they are these days.

    >I reckon there are too many rubbishy PSUs around:

    >(1) Many of the cheaper ones are very overrated in terms of number of watts
    >they can supply.

    >(2) Many PSUs are too noisy for my liking and the PSUs with quieter fans
    >are not so cheap and cost at least 40 UK pounds ( = $70).

    >(3) I am told that poorer designs of PSU permit the mobo to get a current
    >surge when the PSU fails. Better designs have a failsafe capability.

    >All this costs money. I would run a mile away from those dirt-cheap deals.

    Built hundreds

    with the Q-Tec 550W Dual Fan Gold PSU (CA-001-QT)
    example :
    http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Q_Tec_139.html

    at £20 quid the only fault they have is no SATA plugs, and yes they
    run a fully stacked tower case & a 9800Pro Radeon.

    not as good as Sparkle but 1/3rd of the price
    BoroLad
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:40:50 +0100, Franklin
    <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote:

    >I have an motherboard which takes socket A and is based on a Via 266A
    >chispet (FSB of 100 or 133 only).
    >
    >I am running a slow Duron but want to go to an Athlon T'bred-B or a Sempron
    >without changing my PSU. I think might be able to do it but it will be
    >pretty borderline as the Athlons (or even Duron Appledbred) use about double
    >the 25 to 30 W of power which my Duron uses.
    >
    >My question to you guys is ... could I use one of the socket A cpus designed
    >for laptop PC in order to reduce power consumption?
    >
    >If so, then any suggestion which might be a good candidate?

    Athlon XP2400 Mobile 35W

    If your board doesn't allow changing the multiplier (it will
    probably default to 6X) you can use a wire-mod or solder a
    couple of socket pins together (on the back of the
    motherboard) or insert a jumper wire under the CPU in the
    socket holes to get it to run at 14X.

    14 X 133 FSB ( 133 being the in-spec limit on KT266A), will
    give you 1.87GHz. At only 1.87GHz you "might" even be able
    to reduce the CPU vcore further if the motherboard allows
    it.

    However, in theory the Mobile chip may work on your board,
    but in practice, it may not. It'd help to find fellow users
    of your board reporting success with *any* Barton CPU at
    least.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:04:32 +0100, Franklin wrote:

    > I reckon there are too many rubbishy PSUs around:
    >
    > (1) Many of the cheaper ones are very overrated in terms of number of watts
    > they can supply.
    >
    I don't know about "many", but so are some of the expensive ones.

    > (2) Many PSUs are too noisy for my liking and the PSUs with quieter
    > fans are not so cheap and cost at least 40 UK pounds ( = $70).
    >
    Fans can be replaced.

    > (3) I am told that poorer designs of PSU permit the mobo to get a
    > current surge when the PSU fails. Better designs have a failsafe
    > capability.
    >
    All have to meet the same specs. And all have to have some protection
    crcuitry. And there's no such thing as failsafe.

    > All this costs money. I would run a mile away from those dirt-cheap
    > deals.

    That's your choice. Personally I've used nothing but for the last 15 years
    with no boards lost to PSU failures. And I'm talking about in the
    hundreds.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:35:01 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:04:32 +0100, Franklin wrote:
    >
    >> I reckon there are too many rubbishy PSUs around:
    >>
    >> (1) Many of the cheaper ones are very overrated in terms of number of watts
    >> they can supply.
    >>
    >I don't know about "many", but so are some of the expensive ones.
    >
    >> (2) Many PSUs are too noisy for my liking and the PSUs with quieter
    >> fans are not so cheap and cost at least 40 UK pounds ( = $70).
    >>
    >Fans can be replaced.

    yes, and I do it too, but that voids the warranty... not an
    arguement NOT to do it, but there is that drawback, and if
    he doesn't have a suitable spare fan, it's additional
    expense that may negate savings of a generic. Then there's
    soldering resistor or diodes, other fan RPM mods, also
    effective but require more skill, time, less common
    components for an end-user to have, and still void warranty.

    Loudness isn't the only problem though, many generics also
    have poor quality sleeve bearing fans that are much more
    likley to fail prematurely... in such cases a good lube
    will do wonders.


    >
    >> (3) I am told that poorer designs of PSU permit the mobo to get a
    >> current surge when the PSU fails. Better designs have a failsafe
    >> capability.
    >>
    >All have to meet the same specs. And all have to have some protection
    >crcuitry. And there's no such thing as failsafe.

    They do not all "have to have" some protection circuitry.
    Legally they might, but certification or even validity of a
    claim can be quite suspect, especially when the labeled
    "brand" is essentially a gypsy brand that they'll move away
    from after a period of time.

    They are all supposed to have some, but the degree to which
    it's effective, is certainly variable... Poor PSU do fry
    parts when they die, or even worse, while they're still
    running so even replacements for fried parts, face same poor
    PSU.


    >
    >> All this costs money. I would run a mile away from those dirt-cheap
    >> deals.
    >
    >That's your choice. Personally I've used nothing but for the last 15 years
    >with no boards lost to PSU failures. And I'm talking about in the
    >hundreds.

    .... and others have had opposite experience.

    I could go to computer shop right now and see a stack of
    motherboards damaged by generics. It's at the point where
    technicians there check what PSU is installed as one of the
    initial steps in troubleshooting.

    If you have a specific PSU to recommend, for very similar
    platform, and have had it running long-term, over a year,
    then that is a specific scenario and (assuming PSU design
    didn't change) might be applied to specific PSU
    recommendation, but not "generics" in general.

    Given the brief description of the parts planned, many
    generics would be of suitable true capacity, but so would a
    Fortron 300W, very quiet with 12cm fan and only $27,
    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=17-104-937
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:24:27 +0000, kony wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:35:01 GMT, Wes Newell
    > <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>That's your choice. Personally I've used nothing but for the last 15 years
    >>with no boards lost to PSU failures. And I'm talking about in the
    >>hundreds.
    >
    > ... and others have had opposite experience.
    >
    Could you name someone that's used hundreds and had them take out MB's?

    > I could go to computer shop right now and see a stack of
    > motherboards damaged by generics. It's at the point where
    > technicians there check what PSU is installed as one of the
    > initial steps in troubleshooting.
    >
    It's more than likely that the MB (or installed card) failed, overloaded
    the PSU, and it failed also. And the reason you'll see more failures with
    generics is simple. There's many more generics than name brands. Alomost
    every case you buy comes with a generic PSU to remain competitive.

    > If you have a specific PSU to recommend, for very similar
    > platform, and have had it running long-term, over a year,

    How about hundreds that's been running over 5 years, and some as much as
    10 years. The only PSU failure I've had in the last 20years in my home
    systems was one I caused. And I've given the last 3 system to relatives
    and they are still runing after several years.

    > Given the brief description of the parts planned, many generics would be
    > of suitable true capacity, but so would a Fortron 300W, very quiet with
    > 12cm fan and only $27,

    And so would a $12 550W.:-)
    Got one of these that worked fine with my power hungry A64 system.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:56:49 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:24:27 +0000, kony wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:35:01 GMT, Wes Newell
    >> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>That's your choice. Personally I've used nothing but for the last 15 years
    >>>with no boards lost to PSU failures. And I'm talking about in the
    >>>hundreds.
    >>
    >> ... and others have had opposite experience.
    >>
    >Could you name someone that's used hundreds and had them take out MB's?

    How about the local shop I mentioned in next sentence VVVVV.

    >
    >> I could go to computer shop right now and see a stack of
    >> motherboards damaged by generics. It's at the point where
    >> technicians there check what PSU is installed as one of the
    >> initial steps in troubleshooting.
    >>

    >It's more than likely that the MB (or installed card) failed, overloaded
    >the PSU, and it failed also. And the reason you'll see more failures with
    >generics is simple. There's many more generics than name brands. Alomost
    >every case you buy comes with a generic PSU to remain competitive.

    Most OEM boxes come with name-brands though, so it's not
    necessarily true that generics have such a large share of
    the market as you'd imply.

    It is not more likely that the MB or installed card failed,
    excepting cases where the motherboard had known flaws like
    defective capacitors. Quite often after PSU dies, different
    PSU is installed and rest of box still works, but
    unfortunately not often enough.


    >
    >> If you have a specific PSU to recommend, for very similar
    >> platform, and have had it running long-term, over a year,
    >
    >How about hundreds that's been running over 5 years, and some as much as
    >10 years. The only PSU failure I've had in the last 20years in my home
    >systems was one I caused. And I've given the last 3 system to relatives
    >and they are still runing after several years.

    You completely miss the point.
    SPECIFIC instances of specific PSU are all that matter.
    Generic PSU, on average have not increased in capacity to
    match the average increase in power used by todays systems.
    Some can cut it (barely, for a little while), others can't,
    and a few will be fine with lesser loaded systems.

    Do the math. Add up the power requirements of that 5-10
    year old system. If today's box uses twice as much power,
    all other things being equal, you need find a generic with
    twice the true output for the same margin.

    If you've only had one failure in 20 years, you either have
    had very few systems over that time, good luck exuding out
    of every pore of your body, or are full of it.

    Again, it is not relevant how long yesteryear's systems ran
    if the base design of the generic does not change but the
    system power requirement does.

    >
    >> Given the brief description of the parts planned, many generics would be
    >> of suitable true capacity, but so would a Fortron 300W, very quiet with
    >> 12cm fan and only $27,
    >
    >And so would a $12 550W.:-)
    >Got one of these that worked fine with my power hungry A64 system.

    A64 is not particularly power hungry. A Sparkle 250W can
    run one unless it has more than a couple HDDs and a vidcard
    also needing a few 12V amps. However, your system hasn't
    been running for 2 years even, it's not old enough to be
    telling of much... just about any generic that's sold will
    run a box for a "while", else it wouldn't be marketable AT
    ALL.

    In fact, P4 uses as much power and there are SFF systems
    with P4 in 'em, running off PSU not rated for half of that
    "550W" fraudulent rating the generic wears.

    As I mentioned previously, if you have a specific PSU you
    can, with confidence, recommend based on it running a very
    similar system (to the extent that power distribution among
    the different rails is also similar), for over a year, that
    might be relevent... at least it would suggest same
    make/model might suffice, for a year. Success with same or
    different generics running lower-powered old systems is not
    relevant.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:24:27 +0000, kony wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:35:01 GMT, Wes Newell
    >> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>That's your choice. Personally I've used nothing but for the
    >>>last 15 years with no boards lost to PSU failures. And I'm
    >>>talking about in the hundreds.
    >>
    >> ... and others have had opposite experience.
    >>
    > Could you name someone that's used hundreds and had them take
    > out MB's?

    How about hundreds of folks who have had them take out one mobo?


    >> I could go to computer shop right now and see a stack of
    >> motherboards damaged by generics. It's at the point where
    >> technicians there check what PSU is installed as one of the
    >> initial steps in troubleshooting.
    >>
    >
    > It's more than likely that the MB (or installed card) failed,
    > overloaded the PSU, and it failed also. And the reason you'll
    > see more failures with generics is simple. There's many more
    > generics than name brands. Alomost every case you buy comes
    > with a generic PSU to remain competitive.

    And after the PSU failed as ytou mentioned (line 2) maybe it took out more
    of the mobo?

    -- snip --


    >> Given the brief description of the parts planned, many
    >> generics would be of suitable true capacity, but so would a
    >> Fortron 300W, very quiet with 12cm fan and only $27,
    >
    > And so would a $12 550W.:-)
    > Got one of these that worked fine with my power hungry A64
    > system.


    Are you trying to argue that a dirt cheap, made-to-a-price, rock-bottom PSU
    is every bit as good in all respects as a more expensive and better
    engineered and carefully designed PSU?
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:17:31 +0000, kony wrote:

    Deleted all the other junk. this is getting to long.

    > A64 is not particularly power hungry. A Sparkle 250W can run one unless
    > it has more than a couple HDDs and a vidcard also needing a few 12V
    > amps.

    Well, the PSU that powers my Athlon XP system without a hitch won't even
    boot my A64 system even with just the bare essentials. So it sure as hell
    draws a lot more than my XP system. And one AMD tech support person
    recomended 475W or higher. I don't know if AMD has an official stance on
    this or not, and really don't care.

    > However, your system hasn't been running for 2 years even, it's not old
    > enough to be telling of much... just about any generic that's sold will
    > run a box for a "while", else it wouldn't be marketable AT ALL.
    >
    Which system are you talking about I'de had probably 20 personal systems
    over the last 20 years, and maintained hundreds more. Let's see, both my
    original Abit KT7-Raid systems are still running with the same PSU's for
    about 4 years. I've had the A64 running on the "generic" since the middle
    of march. Now since it runs 24/7, that would equal probably more than 5 5
    years of normal home use. My main system at home always runs 24/7, short
    of maintenance or when the power goes out for longer than my Ups will
    keeep it running.

    > As I mentioned previously, if you have a specific PSU you can, with
    > confidence, recommend based on it running a very similar system (to the
    > extent that power distribution among the different rails is also
    > similar), for over a year, that might be relevent... at least it would
    > suggest same make/model might suffice, for a year. Success with same or
    > different generics running lower-powered old systems is not relevant.

    Well, this would cover about every PSU I've ever bought.:-)

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:07:48 +0100, CrackerJack wrote:

    > Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:24:27 +0000, kony wrote:
    >>
    > -- snip --
    >
    >
    >>> Given the brief description of the parts planned, many
    >>> generics would be of suitable true capacity, but so would a
    >>> Fortron 300W, very quiet with 12cm fan and only $27,
    >>
    >> And so would a $12 550W.:-)
    >> Got one of these that worked fine with my power hungry A64
    >> system.
    >
    >
    > Are you trying to argue that a dirt cheap, made-to-a-price, rock-bottom PSU
    > is every bit as good in all respects as a more expensive and better
    > engineered and carefully designed PSU?

    Are you not capable of understanding the first two paragraphs? I think my
    response was clear. And there was no arguement involved. I simply stated a
    proven fact. But if you are interested in a comaprison of the 2 PSU's I'll
    furnish the the one I have to any hardware review site if you will furnish
    the other and can get them to agree to test the 2 and report their
    findings, both in real numbers and value.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:34:08 GMT, Wes Newell
    <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


    >Well, the PSU that powers my Athlon XP system without a hitch won't even
    >boot my A64 system even with just the bare essentials. So it sure as hell
    >draws a lot more than my XP system. And one AMD tech support person
    >recomended 475W or higher. I don't know if AMD has an official stance on
    >this or not, and really don't care.

    Probably different load distribution, old box used more 5V,
    new more 12V. Considering that even the fastest video cards
    available don't push power usage beyond 275W, 475W is
    clearly unnecessary without a boatload of HDDs added.

    >
    >> However, your system hasn't been running for 2 years even, it's not old
    >> enough to be telling of much... just about any generic that's sold will
    >> run a box for a "while", else it wouldn't be marketable AT ALL.
    >>
    >Which system are you talking about I'de had probably 20 personal systems
    >over the last 20 years, and maintained hundreds more. Let's see, both my
    >original Abit KT7-Raid systems are still running with the same PSU's for
    >about 4 years. I've had the A64 running on the "generic" since the middle
    >of march. Now since it runs 24/7, that would equal probably more than 5 5
    >years of normal home use. My main system at home always runs 24/7, short
    >of maintenance or when the power goes out for longer than my Ups will
    >keeep it running.


    I'm talking about a system that is using very similar amount
    of power, similar amperage per rail. I'm not claiming it's
    impossible to run a box from *particular* generics, but to
    qualify such a generic more care has to be taken to ensure
    it's true output capacity (opposed to the inflated figures
    on the label) is sufficient for the particlar system, not
    just "some other system" that may have quite different power
    requirements... just as you saw with the older and newer
    Athlon boxes mentioned at start of this post.

    >
    >> As I mentioned previously, if you have a specific PSU you can, with
    >> confidence, recommend based on it running a very similar system (to the
    >> extent that power distribution among the different rails is also
    >> similar), for over a year, that might be relevent... at least it would
    >> suggest same make/model might suffice, for a year. Success with same or
    >> different generics running lower-powered old systems is not relevant.
    >
    >Well, this would cover about every PSU I've ever bought.:-)

    .... and yet generic PSU cause problems quite often, it just
    seems that you have a golden touch with them.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    These days look for a psu that's an animal on the 12v rail, as opposed to
    the olden days.


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at
    uce@ftc.gov
    Thanks, robots.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
    news:KU13d.269701$Lj.158045@fed1read03...
    > These days look for a psu that's an animal on the 12v rail, as opposed to
    > the olden days.
    That is, many olden but still available psu's with a high wattage rating put
    the wattage into the 3.3 and 5v rails, but not the 12v. Now we have A-64's
    and video cards that need a 12v connection.

    This kind of helps:

    http://takaman.jp/D/?english

    You can consider the startup amp draw for HD's to be high, then they settle
    down (check your specs), so you can weigh that against a video card starting
    in 2D and then gaming. You can look up the video card power consumption by
    rail at Xbit Labs.

    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at
    uce@ftc.gov
    Thanks, robots.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:34:08 GMT, Wes Newell
    > <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    [...]
    >>> As I mentioned previously, if you have a specific PSU you can, with
    >>> confidence, recommend based on it running a very similar system (to
    >>> the extent that power distribution among the different rails is
    >>> also similar), for over a year, that might be relevent... at least
    >>> it would suggest same make/model might suffice, for a year.
    >>> Success with same or different generics running lower-powered old
    >>> systems is not relevant.
    >>
    >> Well, this would cover about every PSU I've ever bought.:-)
    >
    > ... and yet generic PSU cause problems quite often, it just
    > seems that you have a golden touch with them.

    For what it's worth, everyone I know except one has generic PSUs in their
    systems (myself included). This coveres probably somewhere in the range of
    30-40 systems, ranging from P4 1.6's to A64 3200's and dual-MP2800 systems.
    The only one I've known to fail under normal circumstances is when a friend
    of mine plugged an (overclocked) XP2000 Palomino into an ancient (and known
    to blow under high loads) 230W PSU I'd given him to power an old Pentium-1
    class machine. Pop and smoke, but nothing damaged. The only one I know that
    failed under abnormal circumstances was when a friend's house was hit by
    lightning. However, given that it destroyed pretty much every lightbulb in
    the house and completely exploded his monitor, I think it's fair to say that
    having a brand name PSU would not have protected him in this case. The guy
    with the brand-name PSU, and Antec Truepower IIRC, had the first one die
    after 6 months during which it destroyed his motherboard. He now has a
    Enermax which has been going fine for ~6 months.

    I'd have to agree with Wes that one major reason generic PSUs damage more
    boards than "brand name" PSUs is that there's so many out there. FoxConn,
    the biggest OEMer of generic PSUs and the company that supplies pretty much
    every PSU that comes in a "PSU + case" deal (and also in many Dell and
    Compaq machines), sells about a couple orders of magnitude more power
    supplies than the entire "brand name" group all together (going from memory,
    there was a page somewhere about this sort of thing but I can't find the
    right google keywords at the moment). Given the sheer number of the things
    out there, it's almost inevitible that there's going to be a higher failure
    rate.

    That said, I would say the best way to shop is on the current supplied on
    the rails. It's not too hard to get a ballpark figure on how much current
    you need, and if you buy a PSU that satisfies these requirements (noting the
    combined power ratings as well, if they don't show combined power then don't
    buy) then you've got a very good chance of having no problems.

    Finally, one thing that tends to hit generic PSUs harder than brand name
    ones is heat, both in terms of power output and reliability. If you've got a
    borderline-powered generic sitting in a poorly ventilated SFF case, then
    you're probably asking for trouble. However, an identically specced (with
    respect to power-on-the-rails) PCP&C power supply would probably be OK, as
    these tend to be more tolerant in high-temperature environments. However,
    pretty much no manufacturer (except PCP&C) gives you any numbers on the
    variations of supply with regard to temperature, so it's kinda hard to make
    much of a decision on it.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:48:51 +1200, "Michael Brown"
    <see@signature.below> wrote:


    <snip>

    >For what it's worth, everyone I know except one has generic PSUs in their
    >systems (myself included). This coveres probably somewhere in the range of
    >30-40 systems, ranging from P4 1.6's to A64 3200's and dual-MP2800 systems.
    >The only one I've known to fail under normal circumstances is when a friend
    >of mine plugged an (overclocked) XP2000 Palomino into an ancient (and known
    >to blow under high loads) 230W PSU I'd given him to power an old Pentium-1
    >class machine. Pop and smoke, but nothing damaged. The only one I know that
    >failed under abnormal circumstances was when a friend's house was hit by
    >lightning. However, given that it destroyed pretty much every lightbulb in
    >the house and completely exploded his monitor, I think it's fair to say that
    >having a brand name PSU would not have protected him in this case. The guy
    >with the brand-name PSU, and Antec Truepower IIRC, had the first one die
    >after 6 months during which it destroyed his motherboard. He now has a
    >Enermax which has been going fine for ~6 months.
    >
    >I'd have to agree with Wes that one major reason generic PSUs damage more
    >boards than "brand name" PSUs is that there's so many out there. FoxConn,
    >the biggest OEMer of generic PSUs and the company that supplies pretty much
    >every PSU that comes in a "PSU + case" deal (and also in many Dell and
    >Compaq machines), sells about a couple orders of magnitude more power
    >supplies than the entire "brand name" group all together (going from memory,
    >there was a page somewhere about this sort of thing but I can't find the
    >right google keywords at the moment). Given the sheer number of the things
    >out there, it's almost inevitible that there's going to be a higher failure
    >rate.

    No, Foxconn does not make "just about" every PSU that comes
    in a PSU + case deal. MANY different makes are in those
    cases. Foxconn does not have "orders of magnitude" more
    than entire brand-name either, on the contrary, Delta alone
    has more than Foxconn.

    You make assumptions about sheer numbers, but ignore OEM
    systems... they do not generally have Foxconn, but that's
    not to say Foxconn couldn't make a decent PSU, it is not
    beyond any major manufacturer to do so, rather the market
    segment will determine the quality except in less common
    cases of poor design.


    >
    >That said, I would say the best way to shop is on the current supplied on
    >the rails. It's not too hard to get a ballpark figure on how much current
    >you need, and if you buy a PSU that satisfies these requirements (noting the
    >combined power ratings as well, if they don't show combined power then don't
    >buy) then you've got a very good chance of having no problems.

    That is the very worst way to shop for a generic because the
    vast majority grossly overrate the amperage capacity. That
    is one of the problems, they are not rated the same as the
    better name brands.

    On the other hand, if power usage of a system is
    overestimated (indeed, most high-end systems still use less
    than 275W even with a brand-new $400 video card in them)
    then a generic claiming "550W" on it's label, which can't
    sustain anywhere near 550W with an acceptible lifespan,
    "might" still work for a time. If it did work the problem
    is then what happens when it fails, and up to that point.
    When a PSU's caps go far enough out of spec the ripple to
    rest of system increases, this wears other components more.

    >
    >Finally, one thing that tends to hit generic PSUs harder than brand name
    >ones is heat, both in terms of power output and reliability. If you've got a
    >borderline-powered generic sitting in a poorly ventilated SFF case, then
    >you're probably asking for trouble. However, an identically specced (with
    >respect to power-on-the-rails) PCP&C power supply would probably be OK, as
    >these tend to be more tolerant in high-temperature environments. However,
    >pretty much no manufacturer (except PCP&C) gives you any numbers on the
    >variations of supply with regard to temperature, so it's kinda hard to make
    >much of a decision on it.

    You might as well asssume a spec lacking temp is using
    20-25C. It is not just a situation of "more tolerant in
    high-temperature environments", rather than no PSU in a
    normal, hospitable environment is going to be only 25C. PSU
    based on lower temp rating than seen in use must have output
    derated accordingly.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Franklin <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote:

    >I have an motherboard which takes socket A and is based on a Via 266A
    >chispet (FSB of 100 or 133 only).

    Why don't you cross-post to a few more groups, you idiot?
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote:
    >
    > "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
    >
    >> These days look for a psu that's an animal on the 12v rail, as
    >> opposed to the olden days.

    > That is, many olden but still available psu's with a high
    > wattage rating put the wattage into the 3.3 and 5v rails, but
    > not the 12v. Now we have A-64's and video cards that need a 12v
    > connection.
    >
    > This kind of helps:
    >
    > http://takaman.jp/D/?english
    >
    > You can consider the startup amp draw for HD's to be high, then
    > they settle down (check your specs),


    Ed, it's true about the higher startup current for hard drives but the
    surprising thing is that on one of my PCs I run the following components on
    a basic 250W power supply made by FSP subsidiary Sparkle.

    The PSU specs are at http://snipurl.com/954t and show a max 12V loading of
    13 Amps.

    *six* HDDs
    Duron 700
    Syntax SV266A mobo (Via 266A)
    768 MB 133MHz SDRAM.

    plus other bits & bobs like:

    floppy
    CD-RW
    modest nVidia graphics card
    PCI modem
    IDE adaptor card.


    It amazes me that it starts up at all but it seems just fine. Maybe the
    hard drives are having to re-try furiously at startup?

    Am still looking for a SMART reporting tool which will record what SMART is
    showing while the bootup is taking place.

    Does anyone have any recommendations for such a SMART tool?


    > so you can weigh that
    > against a video card starting in 2D and then gaming. You can
    > look up the video card power consumption by rail at Xbit Labs.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:41:18 +0100, "Mark: csiphs"
    <CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid> wrote:


    >> You can consider the startup amp draw for HD's to be high, then
    >> they settle down (check your specs),
    >
    >
    >Ed, it's true about the higher startup current for hard drives but the
    >surprising thing is that on one of my PCs I run the following components on
    >a basic 250W power supply made by FSP subsidiary Sparkle.
    >
    >The PSU specs are at http://snipurl.com/954t and show a max 12V loading of
    >13 Amps.
    >
    > *six* HDDs
    > Duron 700
    > Syntax SV266A mobo (Via 266A)
    > 768 MB 133MHz SDRAM.
    >
    >plus other bits & bobs like:
    >
    > floppy
    > CD-RW
    > modest nVidia graphics card
    > PCI modem
    > IDE adaptor card.
    >
    >
    >It amazes me that it starts up at all but it seems just fine. Maybe the
    >hard drives are having to re-try furiously at startup?
    >


    Not all that amazing, when a power supply can output what's
    printed on it's label there is a basis for matching it to
    the system. Your system has a balanced enough load on both
    5V & 12V rails to allow using a lower wattage PSU than some
    would need. For 12V, your 6 HDDs may not even reach 13A at
    spinup, and if they did, it would merely take longer for
    them to spin up. Once spinning, they and the optical drive
    may be using only (rougly) 50% of the available 12V
    capacity, plus (typically) an amp or less for all fans.

    If you were to upgrade the CPU and video though, you'd
    probably find the 5V rail insufficient at that point.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:41:18 +0100, "Mark: csiphs"
    <CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid> wrote:

    >Ed, it's true about the higher startup current for hard drives but the
    >surprising thing is that on one of my PCs I run the following components on
    >a basic 250W power supply made by FSP subsidiary Sparkle.
    >
    >The PSU specs are at http://snipurl.com/954t and show a max 12V loading of
    >13 Amps.
    >
    > *six* HDDs
    > Duron 700
    > Syntax SV266A mobo (Via 266A)
    > 768 MB 133MHz SDRAM.
    >
    >plus other bits & bobs like:
    >
    > floppy
    > CD-RW
    > modest nVidia graphics card
    > PCI modem
    > IDE adaptor card.
    >
    >
    >It amazes me that it starts up at all but it seems just fine. Maybe the
    >hard drives are having to re-try furiously at startup?

    Nah, looking at your config, I'll say you will start on any decent
    200watter that can handle 8A to 10A on the +12V. One of my friends
    measured a system similar to yours, with a 2.8Ghz P4 and not very
    humbe nVidia graphics card and it barely crept pass the 200W mark no
    matter what he does on it, at least according to him. :PpPpP

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:35:01 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:

    [SNIP]

    >> (3) I am told that poorer designs of PSU permit the mobo to get a
    >> current surge when the PSU fails. Better designs have a failsafe
    >> capability.
    >>
    > All have to meet the same specs. And all have to have some protection
    > crcuitry. And there's no such thing as failsafe.

    You are talking utter rubbish here. There is such thing as failsafe, and I
    would point you to many medical devices which must either indicate a
    warning or keep going if *any* component fails.

    JAB.

    --
    Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
    Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Socket Duron