Cheap/generic PSUs - any good? (was: Low power socket A)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote:
>
> 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.


(1) If there is no load applied to a PC's power supply then after a few
seconds it burns up unless it has protective circuitry. I had thought that
cheaper/generic PC PSUs tended to lack this protective circuitry.

(2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were more likely
to permit a surge of current through the motherboard if and when the PSU
failed. If I understand this correctly then the motherboard could also get
destroyed.

Are these two dangers no longer a problem with cheap/generic PSUs?


[crossposted to electronics & PC builders groups]
44 answers Last reply
More about cheap generic psus good power socket
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    One other problem is cheap PSU's, is that when you load down one of the
    rails (ie the 12v rail) that it will affect the other voltage rails. In the
    goog PSU's, one rail does not affect the other. In my opinion, you get what
    you pay for. If you buy $2,000.00 plus of computer, and then throw in a
    $30.00 PSU, you are asking for trouble. If you bought a Ferrari F50, would
    you put regular unleaded in it?? or maybe an engine from chevette??


    "Mark: csiphs" <CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:956BCC9C61EED3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote:
    >>
    >> 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.
    >
    >
    > (1) If there is no load applied to a PC's power supply then after a few
    > seconds it burns up unless it has protective circuitry. I had thought
    > that
    > cheaper/generic PC PSUs tended to lack this protective circuitry.
    >
    > (2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were more likely
    > to permit a surge of current through the motherboard if and when the PSU
    > failed. If I understand this correctly then the motherboard could also
    > get
    > destroyed.
    >
    > Are these two dangers no longer a problem with cheap/generic PSUs?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > [crossposted to electronics & PC builders groups]
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mark: csiphs wrote:
    > Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote:
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    >
    > (1) If there is no load applied to a PC's power supply then after a few
    > seconds it burns up unless it has protective circuitry. I had thought that
    > cheaper/generic PC PSUs tended to lack this protective circuitry.

    Sounds like an urban myth.

    Without a load the PSU can't regulate (an inherent characteristic of
    switching power supplies) but, while I can't say I've seen 'every' power
    supply out there, I've never seen one 'burn up' from being unloaded.

    >
    > (2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were more likely
    > to permit a surge of current through the motherboard if and when the PSU
    > failed. If I understand this correctly then the motherboard could also get
    > destroyed.

    There are two basic types of output 'protection'. One is over-current
    protection (OCP). That is to protect the power supply from a fault external
    to the PSU pulling more current than the PSU can provide and wouldn't
    protect the motherboard since, if it's pulling fault current then, there's
    already something wrong.

    I's be surprised if there are many, if any, PSUs that don't have OCP
    because that's built into the switching regulator ICs that everyone pretty
    much has to use and, btw, this is what causes the symptom of the front
    panel power switch won't turn it back on after the 'no boot' with 'the fans
    immediately stopped spinning' power on fault. The OCP needs to be reset by
    turning off the PSU with the rear PSU power switch, or unplugging it, for
    some brief period of time, say 10 seconds, so the internal caps can bleed off.

    The other is over-voltage protection (OVP). That circuit should clamp the
    output to a 'safe' level if something in the PSU fails causing it to put
    out excessive voltage. That would only matter if the fault specifically
    caused an over-voltage rather than, say, the outputs going dead to begin
    with. It's effectiveness is complicated by how fast it responds and how it
    controls the voltage.


    > Are these two dangers no longer a problem with cheap/generic PSUs?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > [crossposted to electronics & PC builders groups]
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    40 cars run stop signs and have never killed anyone. That
    proves stopping is not necessary? Such reasoning without
    consulting underlying facts and concepts is called junk
    science reasoning. Same junk science reasoning here proves
    all that essential power supply circuitry is not required.

    All power supplies even 30 years ago required over voltage
    and over current protection. As noted by another, some
    functions are even provided in power supply controller chips.
    Is the function enabled? Only way a consumer can say yes is
    if the power supply claims, in writing, that such necessary
    functions are provided. If not in writing, then the less than
    1% who do such analysis cannot and will not tell others of
    missing functions. If power supply does not claim to contain
    such functions, then assume essential functions do not exist.

    Consumers sometimes suffer failures due to inferior power
    supplies. Then they blame failures on 'things that must exist
    because they cannot be seen'. Ie power surges. No wonder
    some can claim they don't need no stink'in internal
    protection. The motherboard caused all his problems. He just
    knows.

    Switching power supplies can or cannot be operated with no
    load. A function defined in power supply manufacturer data
    sheets. However a no load condition never damages any
    minimally acceptable power supply.

    AC mains surges do not pass through switching power
    supplies. AC mains first gets filtered. Then gets converted
    to 300+ volt DC - more filtering. Then get converted to high
    frequency AC. Then passes through an isolation transformer.
    Then get converted to DC again. Then gets filtered again.
    Power surges on AC mains will pass through all this? Of
    course not. Instead destructive surges use other paths that
    completely bypass the power supply.

    It is very profitable to dump inferior power supplies. Some
    even use junk science reasoning to *prove* they know better
    than engineers and 30+ years of experience.

    Mark: csiphs wrote:
    > (1) If there is no load applied to a PC's power supply then
    > after a few seconds it burns up unless it has protective
    > circuitry. I had thought that cheaper/generic PC PSUs tended
    > to lack this protective circuitry.
    >
    > (2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were
    > more likely to permit a surge of current through the
    > motherboard if and when the PSU failed. If I understand this
    > correctly then the motherboard could also get destroyed.
    >
    > Are these two dangers no longer a problem with cheap/generic PSUs?
    >
    > [crossposted to electronics & PC builders groups]
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Mark: csiphs" <CANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@com.invalid> wrote in message
    news:956BCC9C61EED3A75@130.133.1.4...
    > Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote:

    [snip]

    > (1) If there is no load applied to a PC's power supply then after a
    few
    > seconds it burns up unless it has protective circuitry. I had thought
    that
    > cheaper/generic PC PSUs tended to lack this protective circuitry.

    Of the many cheapo generic AT SMPSes that I've worked on, I cannot
    remember ever seeing one without an OVP circuit. This usually quickly
    shuts down the PS as soon as the voltage rises over the protection
    point, around 5.5VDC.

    > (2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were more
    likely
    > to permit a surge of current through the motherboard if and when the
    PSU
    > failed. If I understand this correctly then the motherboard could
    also get
    > destroyed.

    > Are these two dangers no longer a problem with cheap/generic PSUs?

    No longer?? They have never been a problem, AFAIK.

    > [crossposted to electronics & PC builders groups]
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Fun when the fan stops. Had it happen.


    --
    Ed Light

    Smiley :-/
    MS Smiley :-\

    Send spam to the FTC at
    uce@ftc.gov
    Thanks, robots.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Ed Light" wrote:
    > Fun when the fan stops. Had it happen.

    Yep, also fun when capacitors blow and take out the motherboard - had that happen too.

    Jon
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <10l19fpsc3h0p2d@corp.supernews.com>,
    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >> (2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were more likely
    >> to permit a surge of current through the motherboard if and when the PSU
    >> failed. If I understand this correctly then the motherboard could also get
    >> destroyed.
    >
    >There are two basic types of output 'protection'. One is over-current
    >protection (OCP). That is to protect the power supply from a fault external
    >to the PSU pulling more current than the PSU can provide and wouldn't
    >protect the motherboard since, if it's pulling fault current then, there's
    >already something wrong.

    I've read one report which indicated that some cheaper/generic PC PSUs
    do seem to be skimping, on the input (AC mains) side of things. These
    cheap supplies have only a limited amount of RF filtering and
    protective circuitry on the mains side - just enough to keep them from
    feeding unacceptable (illegal) amounts of RF hash back into the mains.
    They have less (often little or no) protection against high-voltage
    spikes, inductive kickback, and mains-born RF noise. As a result,
    they're somewhat more likely to suffer damage if there's a significant
    high-voltage spike/surge on your mains (as may happen at the start of
    end of a power brownout or outage).

    --
    Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
    Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
    I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
    boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Dave Platt wrote:

    > In article <10l19fpsc3h0p2d@corp.supernews.com>,
    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>(2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were more likely
    >>>to permit a surge of current through the motherboard if and when the PSU
    >>>failed. If I understand this correctly then the motherboard could also get
    >>>destroyed.
    >>
    >>There are two basic types of output 'protection'. One is over-current
    >>protection (OCP). That is to protect the power supply from a fault external
    >>to the PSU pulling more current than the PSU can provide and wouldn't
    >>protect the motherboard since, if it's pulling fault current then, there's
    >>already something wrong.
    >
    >
    > I've read one report which indicated that some cheaper/generic PC PSUs
    > do seem to be skimping, on the input (AC mains) side of things. These
    > cheap supplies have only a limited amount of RF filtering and
    > protective circuitry on the mains side - just enough to keep them from
    > feeding unacceptable (illegal) amounts of RF hash back into the mains.
    > They have less (often little or no) protection against high-voltage
    > spikes, inductive kickback, and mains-born RF noise. As a result,
    > they're somewhat more likely to suffer damage if there's a significant
    > high-voltage spike/surge on your mains (as may happen at the start of
    > end of a power brownout or outage).
    >

    Yes, that's the more likely place for 'cost savings' in super el-cheapo
    PSUs because it takes 'extra', or better, parts to include it.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > (1) If there is no load applied to a PC's power supply then after a few
    > seconds it burns up unless it has protective circuitry. I had thought
    that
    > cheaper/generic PC PSUs tended to lack this protective circuitry.


    I've never seen one that did that, and I've worked with a lot of power
    supplies.


    >
    > (2) I had also thought that the cheaper/generic PC PSU's were more likely
    > to permit a surge of current through the motherboard if and when the PSU
    > failed. If I understand this correctly then the motherboard could also
    get
    > destroyed.

    That's entirely possible, I've seen it happen twice, don't know how cheap
    the PSU's were.

    > Are these two dangers no longer a problem with cheap/generic PSUs?

    Whether they are or not, there's plenty of reasons not to get the cheapest
    ones you can find. As with audio equipment, there's plenty of stuff out
    there with ridiculous wattage ratings on it, but you'll pay accordingly for
    a *real* 300W output.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:4150B4D7.E60C292B@hotmail.com...
    > 40 cars run stop signs and have never killed anyone. That
    > proves stopping is not necessary? Such reasoning without
    > consulting underlying facts and concepts is called junk
    > science reasoning. Same junk science reasoning here proves
    > all that essential power supply circuitry is not required.
    >
    > All power supplies even 30 years ago required over voltage
    > and over current protection. As noted by another, some
    > functions are even provided in power supply controller chips.
    > Is the function enabled? Only way a consumer can say yes is
    > if the power supply claims, in writing, that such necessary
    > functions are provided. If not in writing, then the less than
    > 1% who do such analysis cannot and will not tell others of
    > missing functions. If power supply does not claim to contain
    > such functions, then assume essential functions do not exist.
    >
    > Consumers sometimes suffer failures due to inferior power
    > supplies. Then they blame failures on 'things that must exist
    > because they cannot be seen'. Ie power surges. No wonder
    > some can claim they don't need no stink'in internal
    > protection. The motherboard caused all his problems. He just
    > knows.
    >
    > Switching power supplies can or cannot be operated with no
    > load. A function defined in power supply manufacturer data
    > sheets. However a no load condition never damages any
    > minimally acceptable power supply.
    >
    > AC mains surges do not pass through switching power
    > supplies. AC mains first gets filtered. Then gets converted
    > to 300+ volt DC - more filtering. Then get converted to high
    > frequency AC. Then passes through an isolation transformer.
    > Then get converted to DC again. Then gets filtered again.
    > Power surges on AC mains will pass through all this? Of
    > course not. Instead destructive surges use other paths that
    > completely bypass the power supply.
    >
    > It is very profitable to dump inferior power supplies. Some
    > even use junk science reasoning to *prove* they know better
    > than engineers and 30+ years of experience.
    >

    Best response I've seen so far... obviously this guy knows his stuff.
    And knows his basics!

    Nice one,

    Mark
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    I have been shocked by the B+ that powers vacuum tubes.
    Provides an idea where that experience comes from?
    Electro-therapy can make you smarter? Maybe - or not.

    Mark wrote:
    > Best response I've seen so far... obviously this guy knows his stuff.
    > And knows his basics!
    >
    > Nice one,
    >
    > Mark
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "w_tom" wrote:
    > I have been shocked by the B+ that powers vacuum tubes.
    > Provides an idea where that experience comes from?
    > Electro-therapy can make you smarter? Maybe - or not.

    I stuck my pinky in the anode lead of a tube tester when I was in my teens; then I
    pushed the big red button.

    Got thrown a good three feet from that one; good thing I was still young.

    Jon
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >I's be surprised if there are many, if any, PSUs that don't have OCP
    >because that's built into the switching regulator ICs that everyone pretty

    Some at least have defective protection if they have it at all. I've
    seen reviews of PSUs which included pictures of the charred remains of
    some models which failed the overload test. Let me see if I can find
    it....

    Ah, here we go: http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20021021/index.html

    They claim that 3 out of the 21 power supplies they tested caught on
    fire and/or had components explode when loaded WITHIN the specifications
    given by the manufacturer, much less when overloaded.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Terran Melconian wrote:

    >>I's be surprised if there are many, if any, PSUs that don't have OCP
    >>because that's built into the switching regulator ICs that everyone pretty
    >
    >
    > Some at least have defective protection if they have it at all. I've
    > seen reviews of PSUs which included pictures of the charred remains of
    > some models which failed the overload test. Let me see if I can find
    > it....
    >
    > Ah, here we go: http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20021021/index.html
    >
    > They claim that 3 out of the 21 power supplies they tested caught on
    > fire and/or had components explode when loaded WITHIN the specifications
    > given by the manufacturer, much less when overloaded.

    Yes, well, loaded "WITHIN the specifications" wouldn't cause an
    over-current protector to kick in, now would it?

    I didn't say the things were properly designed and those are good examples
    of how just having 'protection' (even when it's listed in the
    specifications) doesn't necessarily mean squat if it isn't done right.

    It would seem from the examples that those PSUs were built with way
    under-rated components.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:41519D5B.FFED2F0C@hotmail.com...
    > I have been shocked by the B+ that powers vacuum tubes.

    How did your cylindrical head get to that voltage?
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Excalibur" <imnot@home.com> wrote in message news:<1095794656.254797@news>...

    > In my opinion, you get what you pay for. If you buy $2,000.00
    > plus of computer, and then throw in a $30.00 PSU, you are asking
    > for trouble.

    I haven't paid more than about $15-20 for any PSU in the past couple
    of years, but I've never gotten junk, except for a free-after-rebate
    PSU + case. People can buy good stuff cheap from the surplus market
    or by choosing Fortron/Sparkle/Hi-Q/PowerQ brand (Newegg has a 350W
    for $32, delivered). I'm sure that these are better than other brand
    $75-100 PSUs that come in fancy colors and include glowing fans.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:10l45n4o8diq605@corp.supernews.com...
    > Terran Melconian wrote:
    >
    > >>I's be surprised if there are many, if any, PSUs that don't have OCP
    > >>because that's built into the switching regulator ICs that everyone
    pretty
    > >
    > >
    > > Some at least have defective protection if they have it at all. I've
    > > seen reviews of PSUs which included pictures of the charred remains of
    > > some models which failed the overload test. Let me see if I can find
    > > it....
    > >
    > > Ah, here we go: http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20021021/index.html
    > >
    > > They claim that 3 out of the 21 power supplies they tested caught on
    > > fire and/or had components explode when loaded WITHIN the specifications
    > > given by the manufacturer, much less when overloaded.
    >
    > Yes, well, loaded "WITHIN the specifications" wouldn't cause an
    > over-current protector to kick in, now would it?
    >
    > I didn't say the things were properly designed and those are good examples
    > of how just having 'protection' (even when it's listed in the
    > specifications) doesn't necessarily mean squat if it isn't done right.
    >
    > It would seem from the examples that those PSUs were built with way
    > under-rated components.
    >

    More likely the wattage ratings on them were way inflated, ever seen those
    "600 WATT" pc speakers with the 0.75W amp chip in them?
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    James Sweet wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:10l45n4o8diq605@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Terran Melconian wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I's be surprised if there are many, if any, PSUs that don't have OCP
    >>>>because that's built into the switching regulator ICs that everyone
    >
    > pretty
    >
    >>>
    >>>Some at least have defective protection if they have it at all. I've
    >>>seen reviews of PSUs which included pictures of the charred remains of
    >>>some models which failed the overload test. Let me see if I can find
    >>>it....
    >>>
    >>>Ah, here we go: http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20021021/index.html
    >>>
    >>>They claim that 3 out of the 21 power supplies they tested caught on
    >>>fire and/or had components explode when loaded WITHIN the specifications
    >>>given by the manufacturer, much less when overloaded.
    >>
    >>Yes, well, loaded "WITHIN the specifications" wouldn't cause an
    >>over-current protector to kick in, now would it?
    >>
    >>I didn't say the things were properly designed and those are good examples
    >>of how just having 'protection' (even when it's listed in the
    >>specifications) doesn't necessarily mean squat if it isn't done right.
    >>
    >>It would seem from the examples that those PSUs were built with way
    >>under-rated components.
    >>
    >
    >
    > More likely the wattage ratings on them were way inflated,

    Would seem likely.

    > ever seen those
    > "600 WATT" pc speakers with the 0.75W amp chip in them?

    Hehe. Oh sure. Makes ya wonder why anyone bothers with those 2 grand home
    stereo systems when a 6 buck pair of PC speakers outdoes them by 300 watts,
    eh? <chuckle>
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:16:55 -0700, "JAD"
    <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:


    >I hate these extra worries....AMD can give big headaches, because of the
    >power requirments....


    Compared to what, a Via C3?
    It's easier, on average, to run an Athlon box than a P4,
    excepting rare situations where a semi-modern Athlon XP used
    5V for CPU and the video card ONLY used 5V->3.3/1.5V, no aux
    connector like the more modern vidcards have. That's not
    really a problem though, it simply means choosing a PSU with
    ~ 200W+ 3V+5V combined rating. On the other hand, similar
    problem could've been found running a P4 with a lot of HDDs
    on a marginal PSU

    Otherwise, looking at both Intel & AMD's current offerings,
    Intel's use more power, but both use 12V rail for CPU
    (except a dwindling number of now-aging Athlon XP boards)
    everthing else being equal the power supply need be
    marginally higher capacity for Intel platform.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    James Sweet wrote:
    > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:10l45n4o8diq605@corp.supernews.com...
    >> Terran Melconian wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I's be surprised if there are many, if any, PSUs that don't have
    >>>> OCP because that's built into the switching regulator ICs that
    >>>> everyone pretty
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Some at least have defective protection if they have it at all.
    >>> I've seen reviews of PSUs which included pictures of the charred
    >>> remains of some models which failed the overload test. Let me see
    >>> if I can find it....
    >>>
    >>> Ah, here we go:
    >>> http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20021021/index.html
    >>>
    >>> They claim that 3 out of the 21 power supplies they tested caught on
    >>> fire and/or had components explode when loaded WITHIN the
    >>> specifications given by the manufacturer, much less when overloaded.
    >>
    >> Yes, well, loaded "WITHIN the specifications" wouldn't cause an
    >> over-current protector to kick in, now would it?
    >>
    >> I didn't say the things were properly designed and those are good
    >> examples of how just having 'protection' (even when it's listed in
    >> the specifications) doesn't necessarily mean squat if it isn't done
    >> right.
    >>
    >> It would seem from the examples that those PSUs were built with way
    >> under-rated components.

    I expect that the power ratings for the individual voltage outputs were
    spec'ed in the same dishonest way that hifi manufacturers used to rate power
    amps (still do, in fact). Each *individual* output would supply the
    specified current or wattage; but load them all up at the same time and POW!

    Amp manufacturers used to spec their output power one channel at a time, for
    a *very* short time (even down to milliseconds). They could 'honestly'
    state an inflated value, but real-world ratings were considerably less.

    OTOH, I expect that there are seldom real-world operations on a computer
    where 'all' of the given outputs on the psu are loaded to the max for any
    length of time...thus allowing the cheaper manufacturers to get away with
    the deception.

    jak
    >>
    >
    > More likely the wattage ratings on them were way inflated, ever seen
    > those "600 WATT" pc speakers with the 0.75W amp chip in them?
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    jakdedert wrote:

    > James Sweet wrote:
    >
    >>"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    >>news:10l45n4o8diq605@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>>Terran Melconian wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>I's be surprised if there are many, if any, PSUs that don't have
    >>>>>OCP because that's built into the switching regulator ICs that
    >>>>>everyone pretty
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Some at least have defective protection if they have it at all.
    >>>>I've seen reviews of PSUs which included pictures of the charred
    >>>>remains of some models which failed the overload test. Let me see
    >>>>if I can find it....
    >>>>
    >>>>Ah, here we go:
    >>>>http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20021021/index.html
    >>>>
    >>>>They claim that 3 out of the 21 power supplies they tested caught on
    >>>>fire and/or had components explode when loaded WITHIN the
    >>>>specifications given by the manufacturer, much less when overloaded.
    >>>
    >>>Yes, well, loaded "WITHIN the specifications" wouldn't cause an
    >>>over-current protector to kick in, now would it?
    >>>
    >>>I didn't say the things were properly designed and those are good
    >>>examples of how just having 'protection' (even when it's listed in
    >>>the specifications) doesn't necessarily mean squat if it isn't done
    >>>right.
    >>>
    >>>It would seem from the examples that those PSUs were built with way
    >>>under-rated components.
    >
    >
    > I expect that the power ratings for the individual voltage outputs were
    > spec'ed in the same dishonest way that hifi manufacturers used to rate power
    > amps (still do, in fact). Each *individual* output would supply the
    > specified current or wattage; but load them all up at the same time and POW!

    Well, an audio amp shouldn't 'pow'. What should happen with a single
    channel power spec is you run into distortion before you reach what you
    'think', from the channel spec, is max power output. (spec'ing single
    channel power is done to cover the power supply's inability to provide that
    much power to both channels simultaneously. Voltage output droops and
    causes distortion)

    >
    > Amp manufacturers used to spec their output power one channel at a time, for
    > a *very* short time (even down to milliseconds). They could 'honestly'
    > state an inflated value, but real-world ratings were considerably less.

    Well, I don't think whether it's both channels driven or the bogus 'peak
    music power' really fall into the same category. A single channel spec does
    have some sense to it. 'Peak Music Power' doesn't.

    But, for a completely 'honest' number one should be looking to continuous
    RMS output, both channels driven.

    >
    > OTOH, I expect that there are seldom real-world operations on a computer
    > where 'all' of the given outputs on the psu are loaded to the max for any
    > length of time...thus allowing the cheaper manufacturers to get away with
    > the deception.

    Yes, that's often used as an excuse: won't happen in the 'real' world.

    >
    > jak
    >
    >>More likely the wattage ratings on them were way inflated, ever seen
    >>those "600 WATT" pc speakers with the 0.75W amp chip in them?
    >
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:10l6igh3rpnka1d@corp.supernews.com...
    > jakdedert wrote:
    [snip]

    > > OTOH, I expect that there are seldom real-world operations on a
    computer
    > > where 'all' of the given outputs on the psu are loaded to the max
    for any
    > > length of time...thus allowing the cheaper manufacturers to get away
    with
    > > the deception.
    >
    > Yes, that's often used as an excuse: won't happen in the 'real' world.

    But you have to look at it from the other perspective. A PS might be
    rated for one output at 30A and another at 20A (just for example). And
    the _peak_ loads may be such that the 20A output is putting out 24A for
    short times, while the 30A output is loafing at never more than 20A.
    And on the average, the total wattage adds up to less than the rated
    wattage. But because one PS was conservatively rated, that 4A over the
    max doesn't harm it. But another PS wasn't so conservative, and the 4A
    overcurrent causes it to fail, even tho the total wattage was within its
    max.

    So I think that the individual outputs should each be viewed as a
    separate rating, even tho that complicates things. They should all
    standardize on a format like giving 3 or 4 currents, for 5V, 12V, 3.3V,
    etc. So you'd see 5V@30A/12V@15A/etc. Total wattage, like "350W",
    isn't enough info to make an informed decision on the PS's capabilities.

    > > jak
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover" wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:10l6igh3rpnka1d@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>jakdedert wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >
    >>>OTOH, I expect that there are seldom real-world operations on a
    >
    > computer
    >
    >>>where 'all' of the given outputs on the psu are loaded to the max
    >
    > for any
    >
    >>>length of time...thus allowing the cheaper manufacturers to get away
    >
    > with
    >
    >>>the deception.
    >>
    >>Yes, that's often used as an excuse: won't happen in the 'real' world.
    >
    >
    > But you have to look at it from the other perspective. A PS might be
    > rated for one output at 30A and another at 20A (just for example). And
    > the _peak_ loads may be such that the 20A output is putting out 24A for
    > short times, while the 30A output is loafing at never more than 20A.
    > And on the average, the total wattage adds up to less than the rated
    > wattage. But because one PS was conservatively rated, that 4A over the
    > max doesn't harm it. But another PS wasn't so conservative, and the 4A
    > overcurrent causes it to fail, even tho the total wattage was within its
    > max.
    >
    > So I think that the individual outputs should each be viewed as a
    > separate rating, even tho that complicates things. They should all
    > standardize on a format like giving 3 or 4 currents, for 5V, 12V, 3.3V,
    > etc. So you'd see 5V@30A/12V@15A/etc. Total wattage, like "350W",
    > isn't enough info to make an informed decision on the PS's capabilities.

    Proper power supplies ***DO*** give the amperage per rail, and 3.3v & 5v
    combined power, in addition to the 'total power'.

    And if the ones you're looking at don't then don't go near them with a 10
    foot pole,... or an 11 foot Hungarian either ;)

    Problem is, even when they do some of the el-cheapos lie about it, even on
    the sticker.

    What's even more incredible, some of them actually TELL you, right on the
    sticker, that they're lying. It'll say something akin to "300W... actual
    power 200W." Of course, the 300W is in the big letters and what is advertised.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    oh BS MAYBE the prescott.............................. amd still has to
    post their recommanded PSU's. I never even think a moment about PSU's
    (within reason) when I put a P4 together.
    Hey AMD stock is up relax the high pressure sales will ya


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:v9i4l05k2bfuvgsf4iqp8f9lglbtgu3ti5@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:16:55 -0700, "JAD"
    > <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >I hate these extra worries....AMD can give big headaches, because of the
    > >power requirments....
    >
    >
    > Compared to what, a Via C3?
    > It's easier, on average, to run an Athlon box than a P4,
    > excepting rare situations where a semi-modern Athlon XP used
    > 5V for CPU and the video card ONLY used 5V->3.3/1.5V, no aux
    > connector like the more modern vidcards have. That's not
    > really a problem though, it simply means choosing a PSU with
    > ~ 200W+ 3V+5V combined rating. On the other hand, similar
    > problem could've been found running a P4 with a lot of HDDs
    > on a marginal PSU
    >
    > Otherwise, looking at both Intel & AMD's current offerings,
    > Intel's use more power, but both use 12V rail for CPU
    > (except a dwindling number of now-aging Athlon XP boards)
    > everthing else being equal the power supply need be
    > marginally higher capacity for Intel platform.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:06:26 -0700, "JAD"
    <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:

    >oh BS MAYBE the prescott.............................. amd still has to
    >post their recommanded PSU's. I never even think a moment about PSU's
    >(within reason) when I put a P4 together.
    >Hey AMD stock is up relax the high pressure sales will ya
    >

    Maybe you should start thinking about it instead of making
    assumptions. Read some spec sheets, knowledge beats
    guesses any day of the week.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:11:22 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    wrote:


    >>>>Terran Melconian wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>....
    >> ...
    >> I expect that the power ratings for the individual voltage outputs were
    >> spec'ed in the same dishonest way that hifi manufacturers used to rate power
    >> amps (still do, in fact). Each *individual* output would supply the
    >> specified current or wattage; but load them all up at the same time and POW!
    >
    >Well, an audio amp shouldn't 'pow'. What should happen with a single
    >channel power spec is you run into distortion before you reach what you
    >'think', from the channel spec, is max power output. (spec'ing single
    >channel power is done to cover the power supply's inability to provide that
    >much power to both channels simultaneously. Voltage output droops and
    >causes distortion)
    >
    >>
    >> Amp manufacturers used to spec their output power one channel at a time, for
    >> a *very* short time (even down to milliseconds). They could 'honestly'
    >> state an inflated value, but real-world ratings were considerably less.
    >
    >Well, I don't think whether it's both channels driven or the bogus 'peak
    >music power' really fall into the same category. A single channel spec does
    >have some sense to it. 'Peak Music Power' doesn't.
    >
    >But, for a completely 'honest' number one should be looking to continuous
    >RMS output, both channels driven.
    >

    I seem to remember there was a "peak music power" test or some such
    thing where they did actually run a power amp circuit for some
    fraction of a second before it vaporized and claimed the measured
    output as the spec of the amp.

    After that nonsense, they got into honest specs for awhile. RMS output
    measured with both channels driven into 8 ohms, across 20hz-20khz
    bandwidth.

    Then all that went away and all you see now is these silly X.1 channel
    entertainment boxes.

    Personally, I like to spin the amp around and read the UL wattage
    label on the back of the unit.

    100watts per channel 5.1 with a 230watt UL sticker ;)
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <10l19fpsc3h0p2d@corp.supernews.com>,
    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >Without a load the PSU can't regulate (an inherent characteristic of
    >switching power supplies) but, while I can't say I've seen 'every' power
    >supply out there, I've never seen one 'burn up' from being unloaded.

    Just the one: Supplied in error in place of the model that should have
    been sent. The ordered model had no minimum current (internal ballast
    resistors). The supplied model ... didn't.

    Switch on ... tick tick tick stop ....

    Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.

    This was not a PC supply though, just a generic Switch Mode.

    >The other is over-voltage protection (OVP). That circuit should clamp the
    >output to a 'safe' level if something in the PSU fails causing it to put
    >out excessive voltage. That would only matter if the fault specifically
    >caused an over-voltage rather than, say, the outputs going dead to begin
    >with. It's effectiveness is complicated by how fast it responds and how it
    >controls the voltage.

    I think this was the cause of the failure. No current drawn, no ability
    to sense output voltage. Voltage rises in an attempt to hit nominal
    voltage, and (unfortunately) overshoots it. Protection kicks in and
    clamps power supply output. Repeat until failure.
    --
    --------------------------------------+------------------------------------
    Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    first of all, these temp claims are soo clouded and suspect due to
    power usage difference its hard to find a comprehensive chart without
    a bunch of disclaimers and footnotes. buried in that techno babble is
    the truth, but all in all the differences are minimal AND I never had
    to buy 3rd party coolers for any Intel chip. Never burned one
    either....which brings the 'throttling' thing in ...more 'issues'
    which makes the facts corruptible.


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:2dm8l09p5itt4dtpk816ih0a56p7o4kl70@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:06:26 -0700, "JAD"
    > <hrhackthatspam@witchiepoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > >oh BS MAYBE the prescott.............................. amd still
    has to
    > >post their recommanded PSU's. I never even think a moment about
    PSU's
    > >(within reason) when I put a P4 together.
    > >Hey AMD stock is up relax the high pressure sales will ya
    > >
    >
    > Maybe you should start thinking about it instead of making
    > assumptions. Read some spec sheets, knowledge beats
    > guesses any day of the week.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mike wrote:

    > In article <10l19fpsc3h0p2d@corp.supernews.com>,
    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Without a load the PSU can't regulate (an inherent characteristic of
    >>switching power supplies) but, while I can't say I've seen 'every' power
    >>supply out there, I've never seen one 'burn up' from being unloaded.
    >
    >
    > Just the one: Supplied in error in place of the model that should have
    > been sent. The ordered model had no minimum current (internal ballast
    > resistors). The supplied model ... didn't.
    >
    > Switch on ... tick tick tick stop ....
    >
    > Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.

    No offense but your analysis of what caused the failure is, shall we say, a
    bit abbreviated. One thing that sticks out is how did it 'take out numerous
    components' if there was no load on it?


    > This was not a PC supply though, just a generic Switch Mode.
    >
    >
    >>The other is over-voltage protection (OVP). That circuit should clamp the
    >>output to a 'safe' level if something in the PSU fails causing it to put
    >>out excessive voltage. That would only matter if the fault specifically
    >>caused an over-voltage rather than, say, the outputs going dead to begin
    >>with. It's effectiveness is complicated by how fast it responds and how it
    >>controls the voltage.
    >
    >
    > I think this was the cause of the failure. No current drawn, no ability
    > to sense output voltage.

    It isn't that it can't *sense* the output; it can't regulate it.

    A switcher operates with some form of pulse train 'switching' into the
    output caps. Might be a constant frequency PWM (common) but the details
    don't really matter. What matters is there is a minimum pulse width, or
    minimum frequency, that the circuit can operate at and if that 'minimum'
    output is more than needed to provide the (non existent) load current then
    the sense circuitry is going to try to drive it even lower but it can't be
    driven lower than minimum. So you're going to have either an overvolt
    condition or, the more likely, switcher shutdown since 'less than minimum'
    is PWM 'off'.

    > Voltage rises in an attempt to hit nominal
    > voltage, and (unfortunately) overshoots it. Protection kicks in and
    > clamps power supply output. Repeat until failure.

    Once the output is clamped the story is over: it's shutdown; no
    'on-off-on-off-on-off...'. OCP doesn't release till input power is removed.

    Of course, that presumes things are designed properly.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:36:35 +0000 (UTC),
    mjb@posie.local.dom (Mike) wrote:

    >In article <10l19fpsc3h0p2d@corp.supernews.com>,
    >David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>Without a load the PSU can't regulate (an inherent characteristic of
    >>switching power supplies) but, while I can't say I've seen 'every' power
    >>supply out there, I've never seen one 'burn up' from being unloaded.
    >
    >Just the one: Supplied in error in place of the model that should have
    >been sent. The ordered model had no minimum current (internal ballast
    >resistors). The supplied model ... didn't.
    >
    >Switch on ... tick tick tick stop ....
    >
    >Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.
    >
    >This was not a PC supply though, just a generic Switch Mode.


    Yes, it is not uncommon for small, non-PC switchers to lack
    (or at least, insufficient) integral loading.
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:d4ael0d43l1jkd2n4l2cen45gd4mg19jol@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:36:35 +0000 (UTC),
    > mjb@posie.local.dom (Mike) wrote:
    >
    > >In article <10l19fpsc3h0p2d@corp.supernews.com>,
    > >David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    > >>Without a load the PSU can't regulate (an inherent characteristic of
    > >>switching power supplies) but, while I can't say I've seen 'every'
    power
    > >>supply out there, I've never seen one 'burn up' from being unloaded.
    > >
    > >Just the one: Supplied in error in place of the model that should
    have
    > >been sent. The ordered model had no minimum current (internal ballast
    > >resistors). The supplied model ... didn't.
    > >
    > >Switch on ... tick tick tick stop ....
    > >
    > >Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.
    > >
    > >This was not a PC supply though, just a generic Switch Mode.
    >
    >
    > Yes, it is not uncommon for small, non-PC switchers to lack
    > (or at least, insufficient) integral loading.

    I'm thinking about all those laptops out there, that get used part of
    the day and then get locked in a cabinet the rest of the time. All
    those laptop chargers get plugged into the power when they're first
    unpacked, and they're left plugged in 24/7, even tho the laptop is in
    the cabinet. So most of the time these switchers are connected to the
    AC line without any load.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:01:53 -0700, "Watson A.Name - \"Watt
    Sun, the Dark Remover\"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote:


    >> Yes, it is not uncommon for small, non-PC switchers to lack
    >> (or at least, insufficient) integral loading.
    >
    >I'm thinking about all those laptops out there, that get used part of
    >the day and then get locked in a cabinet the rest of the time. All
    >those laptop chargers get plugged into the power when they're first
    >unpacked, and they're left plugged in 24/7, even tho the laptop is in
    >the cabinet. So most of the time these switchers are connected to the
    >AC line without any load.
    >


    Generally a "user detachable" power supply will have at
    least minimal load integral, while other small switchers may
    never be expected to be disconnected from rest of device, so
    rest of device is always providing needed load.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:42:18 -0700, "JAD"
    <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >first of all, these temp claims are soo clouded and suspect due to
    >power usage difference its hard to find a comprehensive chart without
    >a bunch of disclaimers and footnotes. buried in that techno babble is
    >the truth, but all in all the differences are minimal AND I never had
    >to buy 3rd party coolers for any Intel chip. Never burned one
    >either....which brings the 'throttling' thing in ...more 'issues'
    >which makes the facts corruptible.
    >
    >

    There is no cloud. Technical documentation and tests of
    current usage on the opposing platforms both indicate that
    the current-gen Intel chips use more power. As for past
    CPUs, same avenues apply, the tech specs and field tests
    reveal the truth.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    In article <10lej1o8vmhp834@corp.supernews.com>,
    David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:

    >> Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.
    >
    >No offense but your analysis of what caused the failure is, shall we say, a
    >bit abbreviated. One thing that sticks out is how did it 'take out numerous
    >components' if there was no load on it?

    It is abbreviated, it took a while to figure out what components had failed
    etc. and then tell the supplier about it.

    The fault took out numerous components because that is in the nature of
    some SMPS designs when there is no load, and that's why it was returned. If
    it had been a simple blown fuse, then it'd be a patch it and use it fix.
    As it was, there were a number of semiconductors failed, looking at the
    replacement cost (plus risk of repeat performance failure), it was easier
    to just return it.

    >Once the output is clamped the story is over: it's shutdown; no
    >'on-off-on-off-on-off...'. OCP doesn't release till input power is removed.

    Depends on design, surely? I've seen other PSUs keep tripping and restarting
    when overloaded or "under" loaded. Not all of them fail though :(

    >Of course, that presumes things are designed properly.

    That's a big presume there :)

    --
    --------------------------------------+------------------------------------
    Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mike wrote:

    > In article <10lej1o8vmhp834@corp.supernews.com>,
    > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.
    >>
    >>No offense but your analysis of what caused the failure is, shall we say, a
    >>bit abbreviated. One thing that sticks out is how did it 'take out numerous
    >>components' if there was no load on it?
    >
    >
    > It is abbreviated, it took a while to figure out what components had failed
    > etc. and then tell the supplier about it.
    >
    > The fault took out numerous components because that is in the nature of
    > some SMPS designs when there is no load, and that's why it was returned.

    Sorry, but I still don't know what that means: "the nature of?"

    You mean components in the PSU? not other components it was (not) connected to.

    > If
    > it had been a simple blown fuse, then it'd be a patch it and use it fix.
    > As it was, there were a number of semiconductors failed, looking at the
    > replacement cost (plus risk of repeat performance failure), it was easier
    > to just return it.
    >
    >
    >>Once the output is clamped the story is over: it's shutdown; no
    >>'on-off-on-off-on-off...'. OCP doesn't release till input power is removed.
    >
    >
    > Depends on design, surely?

    It is, of course, always possible to do it wrong but, to use your term, it
    is 'in the nature of' <g> the situation itself. Consider designing one that
    'resets' automatically. It would ALWAYS oscillate (on a fault) since the
    clamp, by definition, will put the output back into the 'safe' area causing
    removal of the clamp which will then let the output go back to fault which
    will cause a trip which...

    I can't imagine why anyone would think that is 'desirable' operation (it
    isn't as if this is a pole power line where we're burning off tree branches
    with breaker reclosures) and, with that as (not) a criteria, there's just
    no 'right way' to make one that resets as a result of it's own clamp action.

    > I've seen other PSUs keep tripping and restarting
    > when overloaded or "under" loaded.

    Sounds like a logic error in the design then, or some odd and unforeseen
    anomaly was causing it.

    > Not all of them fail though :(
    >
    >
    >>Of course, that presumes things are designed properly.
    >
    >
    > That's a big presume there :)

    Hehe. Yes. But predicting what a, uh, 'what is it'? circuit will do is an
    exercise in voo-doo ;)
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    <current-gen Intel chips use more power>


    like I said one or the other in any given quarter........... until
    right NOW...you guys love to spank the moment..then all goes silent on
    the 'power' front and we start on the 'performance' kick
    again....round n round it goes. Hey lets throw in 'die' size
    now.............


    OTSO PSU's, NEVER have I bought into the expensive PSU's and never
    have I had a 'cheapo' one fail in fours years+(IMC systems rarely stay
    in the same configuration for more than that, except for my 'museum'
    pieces). I have been LUCKY. And in this market, with all the
    precautions you take, there are no guarantees. Codegen has been the
    absolute best for me, and whenever I can, I use them. However, I have
    not used them for AMD machines. Sometimes its because after all the
    'savings' the customers insist on expensive cases. Along with that
    PSU output issue. Now I have not put a P4 "current-gen" together yet,
    as it seems most people are waiting for the dust to clear, clearly
    common sense.


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:is5fl013dflvsuj6so27j3dg4rafo4gb3h@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:42:18 -0700, "JAD"
    > <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >first of all, these temp claims are soo clouded and suspect due to
    > >power usage difference its hard to find a comprehensive chart
    without
    > >a bunch of disclaimers and footnotes. buried in that techno babble
    is
    > >the truth, but all in all the differences are minimal AND I never
    had
    > >to buy 3rd party coolers for any Intel chip. Never burned one
    > >either....which brings the 'throttling' thing in ...more 'issues'
    > >which makes the facts corruptible.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > There is no cloud. Technical documentation and tests of
    > current usage on the opposing platforms both indicate that
    > the . As for past
    > CPUs, same avenues apply, the tech specs and field tests
    > reveal the truth.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message news:<10m0vqa19v2cg0d@corp.supernews.com>...

    > Codegen has been the absolute best for me, and whenever I can, I use them.

    Codegen is among the worst and contains some of the smallest
    heatsinks, transformers, capacitors and output chokes you'll find in
    any ATX PSU of a given power rating, and one person who dissected his
    found that one of the voltage rails had a much higher amp rating than
    the diode pack for that rail

    I can understand using a Codegen by necessity, but why do that by
    choice when so many really good PSUs are cheap? I haven't paid more
    than $15-20 for any PSU in the past 2-3 years but have never bought
    junk, unless you count a Soyo/Key Mouse/MaxPower that was free after
    rebate, although I bought it for the case it came in (PSU was actually
    OK, only it lacked an EMI line filter). The other brands were
    Fortron/Sparkle, Delta, and, most recently, a 350W Antec.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    I suppose I should have clarified 'the cases' but I assume they use
    their brand PSUs in their cases. Either way, I never had one fail on a
    Intel system. The oldest one I have now is a P3V4X and it runs very
    well, that one has been running everyday for almost 5 years. I don't
    buy into the expensive 'quiet' dual fan' 500w with lights and LED's,
    and rarely have to buy a PSU separate of the case. again I know that
    I have been 'lucky' as everyone ends up being...or not. Without doubt
    YMMV it always does, for me it has been a good decision. They don't
    look half bad...well most of the simpler designs look ok.

    "larrymoencurly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:755e968a.0410032014.1abda8ed@posting.google.com...
    > "JAD" <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote in message
    news:<10m0vqa19v2cg0d@corp.supernews.com>...
    >
    > > Codegen has been the absolute best for me, and whenever I can, I
    use them.
    >
    > Codegen is among the worst and contains some of the smallest
    > heatsinks, transformers, capacitors and output chokes you'll find in
    > any ATX PSU of a given power rating, and one person who dissected
    his
    > found that one of the voltage rails had a much higher amp rating
    than
    > the diode pack for that rail
    >
    > I can understand using a Codegen by necessity, but why do that by
    > choice when so many really good PSUs are cheap? I haven't paid more
    > than $15-20 for any PSU in the past 2-3 years but have never bought
    > junk, unless you count a Soyo/Key Mouse/MaxPower that was free after
    > rebate, although I bought it for the case it came in (PSU was
    actually
    > OK, only it lacked an EMI line filter). The other brands were
    > Fortron/Sparkle, Delta, and, most recently, a 350W Antec.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:37:52 -0700, "JAD"
    <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    ><current-gen Intel chips use more power>
    >
    >
    >like I said one or the other in any given quarter........... until
    >right NOW...you guys love to spank the moment..then all goes silent on
    >the 'power' front and we start on the 'performance' kick
    >again....round n round it goes. Hey lets throw in 'die' size
    >now.............

    NO, it is not this quarter only.
    It was true WITH NORTHWOODS too!
    Due to motherboard design/development decisions, many Athlon
    boards didn't make use of bus-disconnect HALT idling by
    default so Athlons might 'Idle' hotter, but they did not use
    more power. They have not used more power since the
    Palomino days, and earlier Athlons... it's not one sided
    though, previously the K6 used less than Intel's higher end
    at the time. Specific chips must be compared instead of
    making assumptions about power over a manufacturer's entire
    line of chips, over multiple generations and revisions.


    >
    >
    >OTSO PSU's, NEVER have I bought into the expensive PSU's and never
    >have I had a 'cheapo' one fail in fours years+(IMC systems rarely stay
    >in the same configuration for more than that, except for my 'museum'
    >pieces). I have been LUCKY. And in this market, with all the
    >precautions you take, there are no guarantees. Codegen has been the
    >absolute best for me, and whenever I can, I use them. However, I have
    >not used them for AMD machines. Sometimes its because after all the
    >'savings' the customers insist on expensive cases. Along with that
    >PSU output issue. Now I have not put a P4 "current-gen" together yet,
    >as it seems most people are waiting for the dust to clear, clearly
    >common sense.

    Early issues were that a cheap generic PSU mostly had it's
    12V rail unloaded, with only a few hundred mA of fans and a
    couple drives there was a lot of reserve capacity for a P4's
    12V VRM power input. THEN it became more popular to have
    more drives with them becoming more inexpensive, video cards
    using 12V power arrrived in the market, and Athlons also
    switched over to using 12V power for for CPU VRM. Today's
    power needs are close enough that if a given PSU can't power
    EITHER platform (to ignore which CPU is used), it's not
    really suitable for the other, either.


    Generic PSU had a golden era, when systems used less power
    up through P6 and early K7, then marginal with newer CPUs
    and video cards not needing external power. Today they show
    more weaknesses than ever before simply due to increased
    power usage of the *average* system... ignoring other
    issues like fan longevity and failsafe measures.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    sigh motherboard design sun spots Martian memory blah...never a
    clear cut and never the same scenario...stop it already you know as
    well as I that either of us could come up with a configuration that
    would dispute the other.........except for the NOW....then it will be
    later....


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:3321m0p6g57fgk1eoe0buf9c5910dsqaq8@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 15:37:52 -0700, "JAD"
    > <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > ><current-gen Intel chips use more power>
    > >
    > >
    > >like I said one or the other in any given quarter...........
    until
    > >right NOW...you guys love to spank the moment..then all goes silent
    on
    > >the 'power' front and we start on the 'performance' kick
    > >again....round n round it goes. Hey lets throw in 'die' size
    > >now.............
    >
    > NO, it is not this quarter only.
    > It was true WITH NORTHWOODS too!
    > Due to motherboard design/development decisions, many Athlon
    > boards didn't make use of bus-disconnect HALT idling by
    > default so Athlons might 'Idle' hotter, but they did not use
    > more power. They have not used more power since the
    > Palomino days, and earlier Athlons... it's not one sided
    > though, previously the K6 used less than Intel's higher end
    > at the time. Specific chips must be compared instead of
    > making assumptions about power over a manufacturer's entire
    > line of chips, over multiple generations and revisions.
    >
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >OTSO PSU's, NEVER have I bought into the expensive PSU's and
    never
    > >have I had a 'cheapo' one fail in fours years+(IMC systems rarely
    stay
    > >in the same configuration for more than that, except for my
    'museum'
    > >pieces). I have been LUCKY. And in this market, with all the
    > >precautions you take, there are no guarantees. Codegen has been the
    > >absolute best for me, and whenever I can, I use them. However, I
    have
    > >not used them for AMD machines. Sometimes its because after all the
    > >'savings' the customers insist on expensive cases. Along with that
    > >PSU output issue. Now I have not put a P4 "current-gen" together
    yet,
    > >as it seems most people are waiting for the dust to clear, clearly
    > >common sense.
    >
    > Early issues were that a cheap generic PSU mostly had it's
    > 12V rail unloaded, with only a few hundred mA of fans and a
    > couple drives there was a lot of reserve capacity for a P4's
    > 12V VRM power input. THEN it became more popular to have
    > more drives with them becoming more inexpensive, video cards
    > using 12V power arrrived in the market, and Athlons also
    > switched over to using 12V power for for CPU VRM. Today's
    > power needs are close enough that if a given PSU can't power
    > EITHER platform (to ignore which CPU is used), it's not
    > really suitable for the other, either.
    >
    >
    > Generic PSU had a golden era, when systems used less power
    > up through P6 and early K7, then marginal with newer CPUs
    > and video cards not needing external power. Today they show
    > more weaknesses than ever before simply due to increased
    > power usage of the *average* system... ignoring other
    > issues like fan longevity and failsafe measures.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:36:20 -0700, "JAD"
    <Kapasitor@coldmail.com> wrote:

    >sigh motherboard design sun spots Martian memory blah...never a
    >clear cut and never the same scenario...stop it already you know as
    >well as I that either of us could come up with a configuration that
    >would dispute the other.........except for the NOW....then it will be
    >later....
    >

    .... but it gets even worse for Intel now that AMD has 90nm
    cores... 80 Watt difference in favor of AMD is nothing to
    sneeze at;

    http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/7417
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:20:22 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    wrote:

    >Mike wrote:
    >
    >> In article <10lej1o8vmhp834@corp.supernews.com>,
    >> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.
    >>>
    >>>No offense but your analysis of what caused the failure is, shall we say, a
    >>>bit abbreviated. One thing that sticks out is how did it 'take out numerous
    >>>components' if there was no load on it?
    >>
    >>
    >> It is abbreviated, it took a while to figure out what components had failed
    >> etc. and then tell the supplier about it.
    >>
    >> The fault took out numerous components because that is in the nature of
    >> some SMPS designs when there is no load, and that's why it was returned.
    >
    >Sorry, but I still don't know what that means: "the nature of?"
    >
    >You mean components in the PSU? not other components it was (not) connected to.
    >
    >> If
    >> it had been a simple blown fuse, then it'd be a patch it and use it fix.
    >> As it was, there were a number of semiconductors failed, looking at the
    >> replacement cost (plus risk of repeat performance failure), it was easier
    >> to just return it.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Once the output is clamped the story is over: it's shutdown; no
    >>>'on-off-on-off-on-off...'. OCP doesn't release till input power is removed.
    >>
    >>
    >> Depends on design, surely?
    >
    >It is, of course, always possible to do it wrong but, to use your term, it
    >is 'in the nature of' <g> the situation itself. Consider designing one that
    >'resets' automatically. It would ALWAYS oscillate (on a fault) since the
    >clamp, by definition, will put the output back into the 'safe' area causing
    >removal of the clamp which will then let the output go back to fault which
    >will cause a trip which...
    >
    >I can't imagine why anyone would think that is 'desirable' operation (it
    >isn't as if this is a pole power line where we're burning off tree branches
    >with breaker reclosures) and, with that as (not) a criteria, there's just
    >no 'right way' to make one that resets as a result of it's own clamp action.
    >
    >> I've seen other PSUs keep tripping and restarting
    >> when overloaded or "under" loaded.
    >
    >Sounds like a logic error in the design then, or some odd and unforeseen
    >anomaly was causing it.

    Every packaged PSU module we have used has worked that way - Our
    product goes into industrial sites, and it is an unfortunate fact of
    life that accidental human-induced faults do happen occasionally, and
    in those cases we do want the SMPS to keep trying to bring up the
    line, as long as there is no damage. If it needed power removed before
    power would be restored, THAT would be a "logic error" and a major
    PITA for our customers.

    Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Tony wrote:

    > On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:20:22 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Mike wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <10lej1o8vmhp834@corp.supernews.com>,
    >>>David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>Died taking out numerous components. Returned for replacement.
    >>>>
    >>>>No offense but your analysis of what caused the failure is, shall we say, a
    >>>>bit abbreviated. One thing that sticks out is how did it 'take out numerous
    >>>>components' if there was no load on it?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>It is abbreviated, it took a while to figure out what components had failed
    >>>etc. and then tell the supplier about it.
    >>>
    >>>The fault took out numerous components because that is in the nature of
    >>>some SMPS designs when there is no load, and that's why it was returned.
    >>
    >>Sorry, but I still don't know what that means: "the nature of?"
    >>
    >>You mean components in the PSU? not other components it was (not) connected to.
    >>
    >>
    >>>If
    >>>it had been a simple blown fuse, then it'd be a patch it and use it fix.
    >>>As it was, there were a number of semiconductors failed, looking at the
    >>>replacement cost (plus risk of repeat performance failure), it was easier
    >>>to just return it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Once the output is clamped the story is over: it's shutdown; no
    >>>>'on-off-on-off-on-off...'. OCP doesn't release till input power is removed.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Depends on design, surely?
    >>
    >>It is, of course, always possible to do it wrong but, to use your term, it
    >>is 'in the nature of' <g> the situation itself. Consider designing one that
    >>'resets' automatically. It would ALWAYS oscillate (on a fault) since the
    >>clamp, by definition, will put the output back into the 'safe' area causing
    >>removal of the clamp which will then let the output go back to fault which
    >>will cause a trip which...
    >>
    >>I can't imagine why anyone would think that is 'desirable' operation (it
    >>isn't as if this is a pole power line where we're burning off tree branches
    >>with breaker reclosures) and, with that as (not) a criteria, there's just
    >>no 'right way' to make one that resets as a result of it's own clamp action.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I've seen other PSUs keep tripping and restarting
    >>>when overloaded or "under" loaded.
    >>
    >>Sounds like a logic error in the design then, or some odd and unforeseen
    >>anomaly was causing it.
    >
    >
    > Every packaged PSU module we have used has worked that way - Our
    > product goes into industrial sites, and it is an unfortunate fact of
    > life that accidental human-induced faults do happen occasionally, and
    > in those cases we do want the SMPS to keep trying to bring up the
    > line, as long as there is no damage. If it needed power removed before
    > power would be restored, THAT would be a "logic error" and a major
    > PITA for our customers.

    I see. Well, that would, or IMO 'should', be a second 'feature' rather than
    inherent in the OVP/OCP circuit itself. I.E. some kind of timer as, IMO,
    having the thing simply oscillate at the natural frequency of 'whatever'
    doesn't sound like a 'design'.

    What kind of application is this where 'humans' are routinely inducing PSU
    faults?

    >
    > Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,sci.electronics.components,sci.electronics.repair,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 19:28:35 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
    wrote:

    >Tony wrote:

    >>><snip>I can't imagine why anyone would think that is 'desirable' operation (it
    >>>isn't as if this is a pole power line where we're burning off tree branches
    >>>with breaker reclosures) and, with that as (not) a criteria, there's just
    >>>no 'right way' to make one that resets as a result of it's own clamp action.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I've seen other PSUs keep tripping and restarting
    >>>>when overloaded or "under" loaded.
    >>>
    >>>Sounds like a logic error in the design then, or some odd and unforeseen
    >>>anomaly was causing it.
    >>
    >> Every packaged PSU module we have used has worked that way - Our
    >> product goes into industrial sites, and it is an unfortunate fact of
    >> life that accidental human-induced faults do happen occasionally, and
    >> in those cases we do want the SMPS to keep trying to bring up the
    >> line, as long as there is no damage. If it needed power removed before
    >> power would be restored, THAT would be a "logic error" and a major
    >> PITA for our customers.
    >
    >I see. Well, that would, or IMO 'should', be a second 'feature' rather than
    >inherent in the OVP/OCP circuit itself. I.E. some kind of timer as, IMO,
    >having the thing simply oscillate at the natural frequency of 'whatever'
    >doesn't sound like a 'design'.
    >
    >What kind of application is this where 'humans' are routinely inducing PSU
    >faults?

    "accidental human-induced faults do happen occasionally" is not really
    the same as "humans routinely inducing PSU faults". We have a large
    installed base and we can't always control the quality of the
    installation staff, and wrong connections still happen occasionally,
    even during on-line maintenance. In all our cases, the result was
    simply a relaxation oscillation at the protection circuit's natural
    frequency - in the earlier units, about a 1 second pause between
    re-tries, but in the later units (different power supply modules) it
    was more like 100ms. But as long as the system came up without
    intervention and nothing got too stressed, that was still fine with
    us. I don't imagine that the designer set out to produce a specific
    frequency - he/she is more likely to have simply made it safe; but
    either way, it's really of no consequence to the application, and it
    doesn't render the design any less valid.

    Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Hardware Power Supplies Electronic Overclocking