Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

powersupply size for AMD 3500+ ?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2004 8:14:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Is any special powersupply size needed for todays chips like the AMD64
3500+ ? The AMD site doesnt seem to have psu recommendations anymore.
Most cabinets seem to have 300 or 350 watt powersupplies, so I assume
that still works. Specifically, I'm considering a new Antec True380 psu
(380 watts), with ratings of
+5V 35 amps max
+12V 24 amps max
3.3V 28 amps max

That seems like a lot, but I have no clue about actual requirements.
The computer will also have 1GB memory and 80 and 120 GB hard disk
drives. Any other ideas? Thanks.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2004 2:48:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:14:23 -0600, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
wrote:

>Is any special powersupply size needed for todays chips like the AMD64
>3500+ ?

A decent quality one is what is required.

> The AMD site doesnt seem to have psu recommendations anymore.
>Most cabinets seem to have 300 or 350 watt powersupplies, so I assume
>that still works.

A good quality 250W supply will do the trick, a poor quality 500W
supply will not.

Quality, not quantity.

> Specifically, I'm considering a new Antec True380 psu
>(380 watts), with ratings of

Antec makes VERY good quality power supplies. The True380 will
definitely be a good choice.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2004 2:53:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Thanks much, Joe and Tony. That was what I suspected, and now I wont
worry any more about it.
Related resources
December 4, 2004 3:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:53:23 -0600, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
wrote:

>Thanks much, Joe and Tony. That was what I suspected, and now I wont
>worry any more about it.

It also depends on what video card you have. The latest and best vid
cards are very power hungry. If you have that cpu with let's say a
Nvidia 6800GT vid card then you should be looking at an Antec True
Power 480w or something similar.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2004 6:53:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Wayne Fulton" <nospam@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:41b0f352$0$27770$8b463f8a@news.nationwide.net...
> Is any special powersupply size needed for todays chips like the AMD64
> 3500+ ? The AMD site doesnt seem to have psu recommendations anymore.
> Most cabinets seem to have 300 or 350 watt powersupplies, so I assume
> that still works. Specifically, I'm considering a new Antec True380 psu
> (380 watts), with ratings of
> +5V 35 amps max
> +12V 24 amps max
> 3.3V 28 amps max
>
> That seems like a lot, but I have no clue about actual requirements.
> The computer will also have 1GB memory and 80 and 120 GB hard disk
> drives. Any other ideas? Thanks.

That should be fine. Most of the power is used from the 12V line (12*24 =
288W, thus 75% of the PSU here). So, the amps on the +12V is important, so
long as teh +5 and +3.3 are decent enough. My PSU (using an Athlon XP
3000+, 2x120GB, Geforce3 Ti 200 [not much of a draw there :)  ], 3xoptical
drives) is 450W, but only 15A on +12v. Instead they gave it something silly
like 45A on +5v.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2004 11:05:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <hjd4r0lfl0lauo00epfvl0t4rpn05h0jsi@4ax.com>,
fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
>
>I've just done a new system on MSI K8N Neo2 Plat. with Athlon64
>3500+(90nm), 1GB(2xCrucial 512MB), GeCube 9600XT/256MB, 80GB Seagate SATA
>HDD, DVD and DVD-R/-RW+R/+RW using the Antec Sonata with the 380W PS and I
>came to the conclusion before purchase that it would be fine... so far so
>good. The key here, as far as I was able to find out, was that Antec
>increased the current on the +12V from 18A to 24A on later models...
>especially for some of the 130nm Athlon64s.

Yes, thanks, it is sounding very fine. I think my video card will be on the
smallish side, my use is 2D instead of 3D.

I am planning on the Antec Sonata case too, largely for the psu. Antec's
website says the Sonata has a special True380S powersupply, the S appears to
be identical in all respects except that it has one fan instead of two. For
noise I assume, and this seems fine, no problem to me. I like that the True380
series can temp control the case fan(s) too. How is that feature working out
for you?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2004 9:21:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:05:12 -0600, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
wrote:

>In article <hjd4r0lfl0lauo00epfvl0t4rpn05h0jsi@4ax.com>,
>fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
>>
>>I've just done a new system on MSI K8N Neo2 Plat. with Athlon64
>>3500+(90nm), 1GB(2xCrucial 512MB), GeCube 9600XT/256MB, 80GB Seagate SATA
>>HDD, DVD and DVD-R/-RW+R/+RW using the Antec Sonata with the 380W PS and I
>>came to the conclusion before purchase that it would be fine... so far so
>>good. The key here, as far as I was able to find out, was that Antec
>>increased the current on the +12V from 18A to 24A on later models...
>>especially for some of the 130nm Athlon64s.
>
>Yes, thanks, it is sounding very fine. I think my video card will be on the
>smallish side, my use is 2D instead of 3D.
>
>I am planning on the Antec Sonata case too, largely for the psu. Antec's
>website says the Sonata has a special True380S powersupply, the S appears to
>be identical in all respects except that it has one fan instead of two. For
>noise I assume, and this seems fine, no problem to me. I like that the True380
>series can temp control the case fan(s) too. How is that feature working out
>for you?

Yes that 120mm fan with thermal speed control is worth a few dBs. What's
odd about the "special" True380s is that it does not follow AMD's
recommendations on case air flow - it has intake vent slots only on the
front of the PS casing, whereas AMD recommends the conventional ATX
configuration with an intake on the bottom, close to the CPU... apparently
losing the 2nd fan means losing the hole it sits in too. I don't think it
does any harm since it seems to me that the 120mm rear case exhaust fan is
doing most of the work of air flow for the CPU, mbrd etc.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 6, 2004 6:50:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:25:05 -0800, Bass <fish@no.email> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:53:23 -0600, Wayne Fulton <nospam@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Thanks much, Joe and Tony. That was what I suspected, and now I wont
>>worry any more about it.
>
>It also depends on what video card you have. The latest and best vid
>cards are very power hungry. If you have that cpu with let's say a
>Nvidia 6800GT vid card then you should be looking at an Antec True
>Power 480w or something similar.

I'll think it's fairly safe to say that 480W recommendation that had
been floated around since the 6800/X800 launch is coming out of the
bull's rear end. From past experimentations on my own as well as
friend's, a fully deck out uniproc system with a top end graphics card
and lotsa of drives barely make it into the 250W ball park.

--
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
December 6, 2004 11:51:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>> Specifically, I'm considering a new Antec True380 psu
>>(380 watts), with ratings of
>
>Antec makes VERY good quality power supplies. The True380 will
>definitely be a good choice.

Buy an Antec Sonota case, and you get the Tru380 for "free". 8)
December 6, 2004 4:14:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:48:13 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:



>Only somebody without much common sense will buy a 250W PSU to power a
>250W system without leaving any margins for error :p pPppP

Saying, "From past experimentations on my own as well as
friend's, a fully deck out uniproc system with a top end graphics card
and lotsa of drives barely make it into the 250W ball park." may well
lead some people to think that is all they need. Running a 3D game
puts a lot more demand on the PSU than running Internet Explorer.
December 6, 2004 4:17:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:48:13 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:


>nVidia admitted that they were playing it really safe with their 480W
>recommendation. To quote:

BTW, you consider Enermax a quality PSU? I ask because the reason I
went to a 400w Antec was because a 360w Enermax I had wasn't even good
enough to run a Geforce4.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 6, 2004 7:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Wayne Fulton wrote:
> Is any special powersupply size needed for todays chips like the AMD64
> 3500+ ? The AMD site doesnt seem to have psu recommendations anymore.
> Most cabinets seem to have 300 or 350 watt powersupplies, so I assume
> that still works. Specifically, I'm considering a new Antec True380 psu
> (380 watts), with ratings of
> +5V 35 amps max
> +12V 24 amps max
> 3.3V 28 amps max
>
> That seems like a lot, but I have no clue about actual requirements.
> The computer will also have 1GB memory and 80 and 120 GB hard disk
> drives. Any other ideas? Thanks.
>

I have built a few Athlon64 systems configured typically with:
Athlon 64 3200+ to 3500+
1 GB PC 3200 (2 x 512 MB)
12X DVD burner
2 x 120 GB SATA hard drive
Radeon 9600 or Radeon 9800
that have done just fine with a 310 to 360 W PSU from
PCPowerCooling, Antec, or Enermax.

However, even a "quality" 350 W like the Antec SL350 leaves
little margin for expansion in a system like that. For example,
I later expanded the RAM in one of the systems from 1 GB to 6 GB
(2 x 2 GB, 2 x 1 GB) and had to upgrade the Antec SL350 to cope
with the additional power ( 40 to 50 W ? ) that the RAM upgrade
needed.

My current preferences are the Silencer 310 ATX and 360 ATX from
PCPowerCooling but I want to try the Antec Phantom 350 soon.
December 6, 2004 10:51:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:28:58 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


>What a wonderful way to introduce yourself to the regulars in the group!

This is how she/he introduced itself to me.

"I'll think it's fairly safe to say that 480W recommendation that had
been floated around since the 6800/X800 launch is coming out of the
bull's rear end."

Tit-for-tat. And I've been reading and posting here for years so take
a hike you elitist twat.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 7, 2004 5:24:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bass wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:48:13 GMT,
> a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
>
>
>
>>nVidia admitted that they were playing it really safe with their 480W
>>recommendation. To quote:
>
>
> BTW, you consider Enermax a quality PSU? I ask because the reason I
> went to a 400w Antec was because a 360w Enermax I had wasn't even good
> enough to run a Geforce4.

The can both be quality units yet one will fail where
the other succeeds. Different PSUs provide different
amounts of current for the various voltages - it doesn't
necessarily mean that one is better than the others, just
that one is better suited to certain kinds of loads than
others.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 7, 2004 7:12:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:10:35 -0800, Bass <fish@no.email> wrote:

>I suggest you go read some other hardware groups besides this one to
>get the real deal. Niether of you are taking PEAK power pulls into the

I've been doing that eversince getting interested into computers as a
result of keeping the wrong company in my high school days :p pPpP

>equation. Fatal error there. Do either of you even run heavy duty 3D
>games?

I've learnt enough from the veterans in this group to know how to be
total idiot about that when testing stuff :p pPpP

Naturally testing the power draw of the system requires loading up the
system doing the things like heavy duty 3d games (which still doesn't
appeal to me), running 3dmark01/03 (The nature test consistently draws
the most power and usually the first to artifact if there's any
problem with o/cing the gfx from my experience). For HT systems, it
also includes loading up two copies of Prime with CPU affinity set for
max power consumption and of course giving it a spin with Robert's
burnCPU.

Admittedly, neither me or my friend has the equipment to measure
instanteneous peaks but most good quality power supply would have at
least 10% margin built in. Furthermore, most of the peaks based on
reports from other forums and such indicates it's usually during the
system startup due to the motors. But during startup the CPU draw on
the +12V is relatively mild. So even if you would to use an exact 250W
to power a 250W ballpark system, the PSU would already have the buffer
for the peaks if any would to occur.

The issue has always been more about the quality of the PSU and not
the wattage. IMO a good 350W from brands like Antec would be good
enough for most uniproc systems (excluding those with unsual gadgets
like a peltier cooler or something) out there.

--
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
December 7, 2004 7:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:17:29 -0800, Bass <fish@no.email> wrote:

>BTW, you consider Enermax a quality PSU? I ask because the reason I
>went to a 400w Antec was because a 360w Enermax I had wasn't even good
>enough to run a Geforce4.

That's really weird because Enermax's generally considered a pretty
decent PSU brand... My friend currently has 370W PSU running an
overclocked P4 system with an FX5800Ultra, that PSU has gone through 3
different CPU/motherboard combo since last year. He's just itching to
get his hands on one of the newer cards like the X800 or GT68, just a
matter of wallet not being deep enough now ;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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 7, 2004 8:20:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:
> The issue has always been more about the quality of the PSU
> and not the wattage. IMO a good 350W from brands like Antec
> would be good enough for most uniproc systems (excluding

Entirely true. It's isn't about the Watts, it about the
steadyness of the power rails. A few years ago, I had some
problems with a machine occasionally throwing different
md5sums on the HD partation under test. Looking closer,
I saw the 5V rail occasionally sagged as low as 4.73V.

So I replaced that 300W PSU with a better quality 250W, and
the problem was solved. Clean md5s. 20 mV under spec was
just enough to cause occasional errors. You don't see any
big caps on a HD, do you?

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 7, 2004 10:49:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bass <fish@no.email> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:28:58 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>
>>What a wonderful way to introduce yourself to the regulars in the group!
>
>This is how she/he introduced itself to me.
>
>"I'll think it's fairly safe to say that 480W recommendation that had
>been floated around since the 6800/X800 launch is coming out of the
>bull's rear end."
>
>Tit-for-tat.

That's hardly a personal attack.

>And I've been reading and posting here for years so take
>a hike you elitist twat.

So you're just a nym-shifting troll?
December 7, 2004 5:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:16:42 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:


>That's really weird because Enermax's generally considered a pretty
>decent PSU brand... My friend currently has 370W PSU running an
>overclocked P4 system with an FX5800Ultra, that PSU has gone through 3
>different CPU/motherboard combo since last year. He's just itching to
>get his hands on one of the newer cards like the X800 or GT68, just a
>matter of wallet not being deep enough now ;ppPpP

Maybe I just got a defective unit. Most people these days suggest
going with a 400w or more *quality* PSU though to play it safe and if
I was going to get one of Nvidia's latest offerings I might still
consider getting a beefier PSU than I already have. A weak PSU can
damage your mb and other hardware. Why take the risk over a few bucks?
December 7, 2004 5:04:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 07:49:31 -0600, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:


>So you're just a nym-shifting troll?

Correct.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2004 3:19:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:17:29 -0800, Bass <fish@no.email> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:48:13 GMT,
>a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
>
>
>>nVidia admitted that they were playing it really safe with their 480W
>>recommendation. To quote:
>
>BTW, you consider Enermax a quality PSU? I ask because the reason I
>went to a 400w Antec was because a 360w Enermax I had wasn't even good
>enough to run a Geforce4.

My 350W Enermax gave out after a year with an AthlonXP 1700+ and
integrated graphics... It's still capable of running my headless
PentiumMMX 133 setup, but not much more. So I don't really have a
whole lot of faith in their supplies. I may have just got a bum unit
though.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 9, 2004 12:40:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:03:44 -0800, Bass <fish@no.email> wrote:

>Maybe I just got a defective unit. Most people these days suggest
>going with a 400w or more *quality* PSU though to play it safe and if
>I was going to get one of Nvidia's latest offerings I might still
>consider getting a beefier PSU than I already have. A weak PSU can
>damage your mb and other hardware. Why take the risk over a few bucks?

I fully agree that a weak PSU can cause pretty bad damage. But the
difference between a quality 480W and a quality 350W, which still has
more than enough headroom for >90% of the systems out there, is not a
few bucks but something along the lines of US$30 over here. No point
spending more than necessary right? :p PpP

--
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
December 9, 2004 2:37:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 14:04:42 -0800, Bass wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 07:49:31 -0600, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>>So you're just a nym-shifting troll?
>
> Correct.

With a nym like bass, whay would anyone think differently?

--
Keith
!