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

[Guest]

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]

 

[Excalibur]

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]

 

[Guest]

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]

 

[Guest]

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]

 

[Guest]

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]

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[mark]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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>

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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?

 

[Guest]

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?
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[jad]

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.