Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5 HDDs will Enermax noisetaker 600w be enough?

Last response: in Components
Share
September 9, 2006 10:49:26 AM

hey guys just wondering if any of you think i will have a problem running 4 seagate 7200.10 in RAID 5, and one 250GB Maxtor(by itself), on this PSU Enermax noisetaker 600w, the rest of my computer is listed below in all its glory(aswell as the maxtor wich is already installed).



Enermax noisetaker 600w(just recently renamed to the "AllInOne" i believe)
Athlon 4400 X2, @ 2.5Ghz, 1.375v validation
Corsair 3200C2 2.5-3-3-6 @ 1T Twinx 2GB,
Nvidia 7800GTX 256MB XFX @ 467/1.28,
A8N Sli Premium ASUS,
250GB Maxtor Maxline 3,
Sound Blaster Audigy 2ZS
September 9, 2006 1:50:42 PM

your golden!
September 9, 2006 2:27:12 PM

Quote:
Of cource your wattage if fine. I see the PSU has 18amps on both it's 12v rails. You should have no problem with the current. But keep in mind if you go SLi or want to get a DX 10 card you may need to upgrade the PSU at that time.


His power supply actually has 22amps per 12v rail. Your power supply wont break a sweat with those harddrives. To be sure though is THIS your power supply?
Related resources
September 9, 2006 3:25:17 PM

That Enermax should do for the moment, but as Mpilchfamily wrote, if you plan on Vista/DX10, it will fall behind. At this point in time, with Vista supposedly coming out in January (I don't trust Microsoft), it might be better to look for something in the 700-750 wt range if you plan to do that upgrade.
September 10, 2006 1:25:36 AM

to be honest ill have to check what version it is, when i get back to my flat im still on my laptop at the moment at home, its the earlier version with 18 amps on each 12v rail i think. i remeber i got a notice with the psu saying it was going to be renamed so i believe its the earlier version but off the top of my head i cant remember(plus ive just got back from the pub so im drunk).i justn wanted the heads up =)
September 10, 2006 5:09:59 AM

Quote:
That Enermax should do for the moment, but as Mpilchfamily wrote, if you plan on Vista/DX10, it will fall behind. At this point in time, with Vista supposedly coming out in January (I don't trust Microsoft), it might be better to look for something in the 700-750 wt range if you plan to do that upgrade.


I don't know how people can be saying this. Even with next gen videocards there will be no need to get a new power supply. Next gen cards are suppose to take an amazing amount of power (200watts) but that still wouldn't push his power supply to the limits at all. Other than videocards, nothing else is really changing in hardware in terms of power consumption. If anything, hardware will start using less power. That includes the next, next generation of videocards are supposedly cutting down on there power.
September 10, 2006 5:30:04 AM

u wont need to buy a new psu if u pray that external vid cards come out...lmao, hopefully it does happen soon, but other then that ur fine
September 10, 2006 6:39:08 AM

Quote:
That Enermax should do for the moment, but as Mpilchfamily wrote, if you plan on Vista/DX10, it will fall behind. At this point in time, with Vista supposedly coming out in January (I don't trust Microsoft), it might be better to look for something in the 700-750 wt range if you plan to do that upgrade.


He should be fine even with DX10 cards...even in SLI prolly (maybe not the very top of the line SLi though)

Its not like hes overclocking is he?
September 10, 2006 2:42:59 PM

For both you and Buckiller, Vista and DX10 are supposed to be very power hungry, at least some of the initial reports indicate that. Beyond that, he's running 5 hard drives and some other power hungry stuff already. If he does go SLI/Crossfire or adds any watercooling, he'll use up wattage fast. Yes, he might get by on 600 wts, but he might end up short. Personally, I'd rather spend money once on a power supply, rather than buy 2 of the things because the first was too small. Less work too.

I do base some of my thinking from my computer, which according to a psu calculator needs 640 wts right now, and I only have 2 hard drives. So guess what that means when I make the transition to a DX10 card? Lots more power being used. I've read of a some people right now straining 750-850 wt power suppies, and a few who have gone to a full 1000 wt. That doesn't mean that systems can't be built that won't get by on 600 wts, but it depends on how much hardware is being run.
September 10, 2006 2:56:29 PM

Quote:
For both you and Buckiller, Vista and DX10 are supposed to be very power hungry, at least some of the initial reports indicate that. Beyond that, he's running 5 hard drives and some other power hungry stuff already. If he does go SLI/Crossfire or adds any watercooling, he'll use up wattage fast. Yes, he might get by on 600 wts, but he might end up short. Personally, I'd rather spend money once on a power supply, rather than buy 2 of the things because the first was too small. Less work too.

I do base some of my thinking from my computer, which according to a psu calculator needs 640 wts right now, and I only have 2 hard drives. So guess what that means when I make the transition to a DX10 card? Lots more power being used. I've read of a some people right now straining 750-850 wt power suppies, and a few who have gone to a full 1000 wt. That doesn't mean that systems can't be built that won't get by on 600 wts, but it depends on how much hardware is being run.


How is vista, a program, power hungry? And what wattage calculator are you using?
September 10, 2006 3:27:58 PM

As a program, from what I understand, Vista is demanding on resources, and that takes power. I may be wrong in my understanding and it all might relate to the DX10 and cards that use it.

The psu calculator I used was extreme.outervison.com/psucalculator.jsp. My total hardware setup is probably bigger than that of a lot of people, and after a couple of earlier problems with not enough power, I tend to lean towards getting a psu with more power then the calculator projects than the minimum required. As such, though the calculator says I need 640 wts, so I run 680 wts.
September 11, 2006 3:21:53 AM

Quote:
As a program, from what I understand, Vista is demanding on resources, and that takes power. I may be wrong in my understanding and it all might relate to the DX10 and cards that use it.

The psu calculator I used was extreme.outervison.com/psucalculator.jsp. My total hardware setup is probably bigger than that of a lot of people, and after a couple of earlier problems with not enough power, I tend to lean towards getting a psu with more power then the calculator projects than the minimum required. As such, though the calculator says I need 640 wts, so I run 680 wts.


After calculating Flakes recommended wattage, it comes up as 544 watts. Remember this is recommended, his system probably doesn't even use that much.

As for Vista, I think your confusing performance hungry and power hungry. If you utilize your components 100% inside of XP and utilize your components 100% inside Vista, you will get the same wattage usage. Software will not change the power usage inside a computer, unless it is specifically designed to do so.
September 11, 2006 1:09:18 PM

Quote:
For both you and Buckiller, Vista and DX10 are supposed to be very power hungry, at least some of the initial reports indicate that. Beyond that, he's running 5 hard drives and some other power hungry stuff already. If he does go SLI/Crossfire or adds any watercooling, he'll use up wattage fast. Yes, he might get by on 600 wts, but he might end up short. Personally, I'd rather spend money once on a power supply, rather than buy 2 of the things because the first was too small. Less work too.

I do base some of my thinking from my computer, which according to a psu calculator needs 640 wts right now, and I only have 2 hard drives. So guess what that means when I make the transition to a DX10 card? Lots more power being used. I've read of a some people right now straining 750-850 wt power suppies, and a few who have gone to a full 1000 wt. That doesn't mean that systems can't be built that won't get by on 600 wts, but it depends on how much hardware is being run.


Your stance is ridiculous, I run my watercooled X2 3800+ at 2.9GHz 24/7 under full load (two Folding @ Home clients) along with a 7800GS at 550/680, two CDs and three HDDs using a modest 365W Enermax EG365P-VE. Mind you, the pump is the only part that consume power in a watercooling loop, specialized 12V DC pumps don't use more than 20W in general, this is, in fact, so low that you can neglect it.

Even a demanding multi-GPU system won't exceed the capabilities of a quality 600W PSU, anthing above that rating is a foolish and unresoneable expense.

As Omen pointed out, the OS is irrelevant, a 100% CPU load is the same no matter which OS is being used.
September 11, 2006 1:32:10 PM

Nobody here points out the obvious, that one of the reasons that Intel was getting their ass handed back to them was because of increased power consumption? Well, same thing will happen for graphics cards too. Once either ATI or Nvidia makes a power-efficent card, then the other will start running into trouble. More power is not the way companies are trying to go, they're not like, my card uses more watts than yours therefore I PWN you, its the other way around.

I see that 700W should be the max for nearly all applications, including quad-core + SLI/Xfire. The cost of electricity only goes up, it doesn't go down...
September 11, 2006 2:34:11 PM

You know, to me, as both a gamer, and system developer, the problem with Vista is that we have 5 or 6 versions of it. The version that is really cool, Vista Aero Ultimate with the DX-10 support and all that is clocking in at $300+! Now add the extra cost of the DX-10 card and we have a recipe for one of 3 things:

1. I can live without seeing the shadow of a blade of grass with DX-10 and have multiple hundred dollars extra in my pocket.

2. Keep my current computer as it is and get a PS3 specifically designed for gaming with the money I would have to spend on my less than portable desktop (and also get a BlueRay DVD in the process with the PS3.)

3. I have to hate MS even more than I did before for gouging me so bad on an OS! Who ever heard of 3 or 4 hundred dollars for an opperating system? It is crazy talk! Vista Aero is cool, but make the everyday version cool and don't just ram it up the gamers butt's and say, "Oh these guys will pay for it, they pay for everything else." If MS isn't getting a big enough piece of the pie already, i don't know what the heck IS going to be enough for them.

I agree with you that GC's need to be designed to be more efficient and are using tremendous amouts of wattage. I am not sure 700 watts should be this magical number that we can't go over. My stinking hair dryer is almost twice that, and not nearly as fun. I also don't think Intel was getting there ass handed to them because of power consumption. I think it was more of the architectual shortcomings of their chip, memory handling problems, ever changing shell-game of sockets, memory and chipsets that pissed people off and essentially a lack of talent and know how from their design team of where to go next for lack of a better explanation.

I mean, you have to look at how tired the Pentium class was, and wasn't getting any better. The Yonah Core Duo started turning things around for them big time, and they truely had very little of a hand in it. The Isrealis completely redesigned the thing and gave intel a total gift.

From what has unfolded, AMD isn't much better. I mean, what the heck were they doing for the last year and a half? Was their secret weapon adding DDR2 memory to their system? Wow! That's big. They are getting kicked around the block now and it looks like it is because they were sitting back with their feet up reading the Wall Street Journal, looking at their stock price and NOT doing their R&D homework.

I know, I know, 4x4 and quad core and all that. Whatever. Show me the money.

September 11, 2006 5:02:36 PM

Quote:
recommended wattage, it comes up as 544 watts. Remember this is recommended, his system probably doesn't even use that much.

As for Vista, I think your confusing performance hungry and power hungry. If you utilize your components 100% inside of XP and utilize your components 100% inside Vista, you will get the same wattage usage. Software will not change the power usage inside a computer, unless it is specifically designed to do so.
[/b]

Ok, you calculated 544 wts and he is thinking of a 600wt psu. No problem with that. But I was looking not just at his present system, but with the future in mind. From what I've read, DX10 cards will draw upwards of 200 wts, about 50 wt more than high performance cards now. Perhaps that's wrong and I've been misinformed. Don't know for sure. But given the added 50 wts, that would put him at 594 wts, right on the edge of the 600 wt capacity. True enough, he might well get by on this, especially when max power is not needed, but he might well come up short.

In one of my responses I mentioned the possibility of going SLI, that if he did that, then his power needs would go up a bunch and then his psu would be insufficient. At that point, given an extra 150 wt or so of more needed power, a 750 wt is not out of line. If he doesn't go SLI, then his 600 might get along fine.

You're right, and maybe I confused the issue a bit, about the wattage difference of XP and Vista at 100% as far as the programs themselves. My thought was not only on Vista itself, but with the new hardware that it will utilize, like the DX10 card.

Am I being a bit ridiculous? Maybe, but I've got a burned up psu and I had to exchange one for a larger psu because I didn't have enough power. Now I prefer to err on the more than enough power rather than to get by on the least possible. I don't like going through the time, trouble, and expense of replacing power supplies because I was trying to find the smallest one that would run my system. Its not worth it to me.
September 11, 2006 5:47:58 PM

you are correct but theres something i have to point out here my current graphics card recommends a 300w power supply(according to my box).

and

Quote:
The 7800GTX does not require any more power than the 6800Ultra, at least according to nVidia. The minimum required power supply wattage for a 7800GTX system is 350Watts, same as the the 6800Ultra.


pcstats

hes a site showing the total load of a full system with a 7800GTX only at 244watts.

neo

even toms has found the 7800 doesnt draw that much power, if youve had power failures in the past its probably from buying cheap powersupplys or non branded supplys. one of the reasons i bought mine was at the time it was SLI approved although looking at SLIzone i can only find the "Noisetaker II" so enermax must of replaced the version of PSU that i have.
September 11, 2006 6:09:26 PM

I started out using a 7800 GTX SLI system. That proved too much for the first power supply and it failed. I bought some more hardware at the same time I ordered the next psu, but it wouldn't keep up. Then I used a psu calcualtor and found that I was using more power than I originally thought, so I exchanged and upgraded the power supply. Since then, I haven't had any problems.

For anyone that want to calculate my psu requirements by the hardware in my sig, be aware that I have more hardware than I list.

And yes, the 600 wt psu that you list should do for your present system without any problem.
September 11, 2006 6:14:47 PM

Quote:
Ok, you calculated 544 wts and he is thinking of a 600wt psu. No problem with that. But I was looking not just at his present system, but with the future in mind. From what I've read, DX10 cards will draw upwards of 200 wts, about 50 wt more than high performance cards now. Perhaps that's wrong and I've been misinformed. Don't know for sure. But given the added 50 wts, that would put him at 594 wts, right on the edge of the 600 wt capacity. True enough, he might well get by on this, especially when max power is not needed, but he might well come up short.

In one of my responses I mentioned the possibility of going SLI, that if he did that, then his power needs would go up a bunch and then his psu would be insufficient. At that point, given an extra 150 wt or so of more needed power, a 750 wt is not out of line. If he doesn't go SLI, then his 600 might get along fine.

You're right, and maybe I confused the issue a bit, about the wattage difference of XP and Vista at 100% as far as the programs themselves. My thought was not only on Vista itself, but with the new hardware that it will utilize, like the DX10 card.

Am I being a bit ridiculous? Maybe, but I've got a burned up psu and I had to exchange one for a larger psu because I didn't have enough power. Now I prefer to err on the more than enough power rather than to get by on the least possible. I don't like going through the time, trouble, and expense of replacing power supplies because I was trying to find the smallest one that would run my system. Its not worth it to me.


That wattage calculator factors in efficiency (or inefficiency) of the power supply, as well as "old caps". I've never even heard of that being used to calculate recommended psu wattage. That calculator completely blows things out of proportion anyway. Supposedly my system uses just over 400watts... 400WATTS!!! No way. My system probably barely scrapes 200.

And are you absolutely sure your power supply burned out because it couldn't handle the wattage required? Or could it of been just a bad psu? how many watts did this first PSU have? How many amps on the 12v rail(s)?
September 11, 2006 7:09:35 PM

[quote="F1nal_0men
That wattage calculator factors in efficiency (or inefficiency) of the power supply, as well as "old caps". I've never even heard of that being used to calculate recommended psu wattage. That calculator completely blows things out of proportion anyway. Supposedly my system uses just over 400watts... 400WATTS!!! No way. My system probably barely scrapes 200.

And are you absolutely sure your power supply burned out because it couldn't handle the wattage required? Or could it of been just a bad psu? how many watts did this first PSU have? How many amps on the 12v rail(s)?[/quote]

The psu that burned up was rated at 420 wt. It was old, so may have been on the edge of going out anyway. I initially replaced it with a 500 wt psu, but had problems powering up and having the computer die during a game. Someone on the forums, can't remember who, recommended the psu calculator that I used and mentioned here. So I used it, came up with about 640 wts, and bought my present 680 wt psu.

Was I misinformed or mislead about the needed wattage? Perhaps, but I went by what was recommended at the time and it has worked. I haven't crosschecked with other psu calculators, so can't comment there. I do remember that when I got my present video card, the minimum power recommended was 550 wt so with the additional hardware that I have, a bigger psu seemed in line. Again, maybe the recommendation was too high, but I can't say one way or the other about that. All I can say is that the psu that I now have has worked for nearly a year now without any problems, so I'm satisfied with it.
September 11, 2006 7:17:01 PM

Quote:
The psu that burned up was rated at 420 wt. It was old, so may have been on the edge of going out anyway. I initially replaced it with a 500 wt psu, but had problems powering up and having the computer die during a game. Someone on the forums, can't remember who, recommended the psu calculator that I used and mentioned here. So I used it, came up with about 640 wts, and bought my present 680 wt psu.

Was I misinformed or mislead about the needed wattage? Perhaps, but I went by what was recommended at the time and it has worked. I haven't crosschecked with other psu calculators, so can't comment there. I do remember that when I got my present video card, the minimum power recommended was 550 wt so with the additional hardware that I have, a bigger psu seemed in line. Again, maybe the recommendation was too high, but I can't say one way or the other about that. All I can say is that the psu that I now have has worked for nearly a year now without any problems, so I'm satisfied with it.


I think the most important point that this peaceful argument will prove, is that there is a HUGE difference between recommended and required PSU wattage.

Although, obviously, when in the market for a psu you should always buy an extra 100 or 200 watts so you have headroom, and your psu can survive the stress of day in-day out operation. And I'm sure that psu calculator is putting that into the equation.

So we are almost arguing about two different things. Required and recommended power. Yes, 600watts is ridiculous for most systems, but it's better being safe then sorry. Ultimately I think we're both right in our ownn ways.
September 11, 2006 7:25:10 PM

Agreed. Let there be peace.
September 11, 2006 7:52:28 PM

Quote:
Agreed. Let there be peace.


lol yeah... 600 watts absolutely fine (especially enermax, they tend to actually put RMS type watt ratings instead of max right?) The only way you would be exceeding that is if you were a massive overclocker that overclocks everything in your system etc.

Hard Drives do not take much power compared to the GPU and CPU... my friend is running 6 hard drives, Opty 165 at 2.8GHz (massive OC), and a 6800gs OC with some non-name brand PSU rated at 520watts.
September 11, 2006 11:55:39 PM

Oh boy I love these threads. Do a search on power supplies, like "how much crap can a 300watt ps run" you'll be suprised.

A high quality 400-500watt ps is all you'll need, for now or the future, even with SLI and two DX10 Cards if you feel so inclined.

Now if you want to OC or just feel REAL good about yourself, get a 600.

I can guarantee you that power supply companies are laughing their ass' off at how many people are wasting money on their overpriced 800 and 1000 watt ps's. They just roll in the cash of stupid consumers.
!