Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 17, 2004 4:40:50 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 8:35:48 AM

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
September 17, 2004 2:04:32 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 2:04:33 PM

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...

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 2:09:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 2:35:01 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 4:24:27 PM

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?descripti...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 8:56:49 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 9:17:31 PM

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.
September 18, 2004 12:07:48 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2004 11:34:08 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2004 11:51:27 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2004 12:34:40 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2004 6:38:52 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 19, 2004 12:18:01 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2004 1:48:51 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2004 1:48:52 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 20, 2004 11:52:03 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2004 6:41:18 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 21, 2004 7:08:55 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2004 11:35:54 PM

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. :p pPpP

--
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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2004 12:37:38 AM

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
!