Which of these is not the same?

Hey guys. Looking at getting a new (better) PSU. Found these two that I liked and another Xion 1000w, buy honestly other than the way the modular cables connect, I can't tell the difference in these. Could anyone help me with the difference or even suggest a better PSU?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817121068&Tpk=Lz-1000

or

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817121037&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Power+Supplies-_-Kingwin+Inc.-_-17121037

Thanks!


P.S. Here's the Xion PSU too:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817190021&cm_re=xion_power_supply-_-17-190-021-_-Product
22 answers Last reply
More about which same
  1. I wouldn't recommend any of those.
    Are you adding new parts to your system or are you just getting a new PSU?
    If you are just getting a new PSU for your x4 955 and 4890, I would get this PSU:
    XFX 750w:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817207003&Tpk=xfx%20750w

    Cheaper, better quality and more than enough for your system.
  2. Neither of them.

    750W or 850W PSU from Corsair, Seasonic, Antec or (believe it or not) NZXT. The XFX stated above I think is made by Seasonic so that's a good one too.
  3. LePhuronn said:
    Neither of them.

    750W or 850W PSU from Corsair, Seasonic, Antec or (believe it or not) NZXT. The XFX stated above I think is made by Seasonic so that's a good one too.


    Dont forget SS, this SS is one of the best performing PSU's in the market. To add on to the "believe it or not" group, the Thermaltake Grand is also very good, along with the NZXT Hale.
  4. The Kingwin Lazer is actually a decent PSU, but it is overkill.
    Youll be fine with the XFX 750W stated above, even for dual 4890s.
  5. Thanks for all the replies! I was told I needed to get a bigger PSU for overclocking my hardware after I was getting several BSOD's. I guess that's why I went so high : P
  6. Since those 1000w PSUs are not much more, I say go for it. They ARE pretty good PSUs.

    Get the Lazer, it gets a great score from Johnny:
    http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story5&reid=168
  7. Hmmm, I wouldn't call that a "great" score, considering it didn't hit the 80+ Bronze it claims. That doesn't make it bad, but not in the league with Seasonic, Antec, and some of the specific others that were listed.
    In your place, I'd probably check out the 80+ gold Seasonic X750: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151087
  8. I think the XFX 750w/850w is the best, both get great scores(9.7, points off for style and functionality, perfect 10s on performance):
    http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story5&reid=184
    http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story5&reid=165
    Plus they are a great value at $130 and $110, and more power than you need.
  9. Onus said:
    Hmmm, I wouldn't call that a "great" score, considering it didn't hit the 80+ Bronze it claims. That doesn't make it bad, but not in the league with Seasonic, Antec, and some of the specific others that were listed.
    In your place, I'd probably check out the 80+ gold Seasonic X750: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151087


    Efficiency is important, but it is very secondary to voltage ripple and voltage fluctuation, or stability in general. Honestly, I'd prefer to have a nice stable 1000w over an extremely stable 750w if I was on a budget. Of course, I will get the $350 ridiculously amazing 1000w myself, but I NEVER put myself on a budget for PSUs.
  10. AMW1011 said:
    Efficiency is important, but it is very secondary to voltage ripple and voltage fluctuation, or stability in general. Honestly, I'd prefer to have a nice stable 1000w over an extremely stable 750w if I was on a budget. Of course, I will get the $350 ridiculously amazing 1000w myself, but I NEVER put myself on a budget for PSUs.


    I have a mid range 1000w PSU, and i actually like having the extra space. But nowadays, i dont recommend much higher than the SS 850w. That, the Seasonic 850w, and XFX 850w are all some of the best performing PSU's on the market, yet some of the best bargains as well.
  11. ares1214 said:
    I have a mid range 1000w PSU, and i actually like having the extra space. But nowadays, i dont recommend much higher than the SS 850w. That, the Seasonic 850w, and XFX 850w are all some of the best performing PSU's on the market, yet some of the best bargains as well.


    Well that's how I felt when I bought my PC Power and Cooling Silencer 750w, then I found out I would need to upgrade to run GTX 470s in SLI with overclocks... now ATI are supposedly coming out with a 255w monster.

    Quote:
    I thought you idiots only spammed up the articles and reviews... :pfff:


    Dude, delete your post, your actually advertising for them...
  12. AMW1011 said:
    Well that's how I felt when I bought my PC Power and Cooling Silencer 750w, then I found out I would need to upgrade to run GTX 470s in SLI with overclocks... now ATI are supposedly coming out with a 255w monster.


    Dude, delete your post, your actually advertising for them...


    Yeah. I hope AMD doesnt lose themselves too much. I dont want them to run just as hot as fermi and need as much energy as fermi, and not back it up with the performance.
  13. ares1214 said:
    Yeah. I hope AMD doesnt lose themselves too much. I dont want them to run just as hot as fermi and need as much energy as fermi, and not back it up with the performance.


    Personally, if its a performance monster I don't give a damn. I have plenty power supply for one, and I don't go cheap on my cases, my FT02 will chill any video card.

    Bring on the performance, heat, and power!
  14. AMW1011 said:
    Personally, if its a performance monster I don't give a damn. I have plenty power supply for one, and I don't go cheap on my cases, my FT02 will chill any video card.

    Bring on the performance, heat, and power!


    But what im getting at is yes, my case is cool and i have a kilowatt PSU, if they have to produce a lot more heat or use a lot more energy just to get the performance, it isnt impressive.
  15. ares1214 said:
    But what im getting at is yes, my case is cool and i have a kilowatt PSU, if they have to produce a lot more heat or use a lot more energy just to get the performance, it isnt impressive.


    Ares you can only do so much refinement to an architecture before you need to start adding transistors. The fact that they ended up getting as much performance as they did out of the 68xx series is just amazing. Its all bigger chips from here on out.
  16. AMW1011 said:
    Ares you can only do so much refinement to an architecture before you need to start adding transistors. The fact that they ended up getting as much performance as they did out of the 68xx series is just amazing. Its all bigger chips from here on out.


    Not entirely true. Barts is just previous gen with evergreen controller and having a lot of shaders cut down. The ROP held back the shaders of the previous gen, so even though the 5870 had 1600, say 1200 were in use. This is part of the reason why the 5850 and 5870 has almost identical performance clock for clock. So while Barts is very impressive, all it really is is taking away, not so much rebuilding. 69xx on the other hand is suppose to be the really new one. Barts was more of taking away from Cypress than it was building onto Juniper. 69xx will be the real test if they can EFFICIENTLY add transistors. Like i said, 40% more performance, great, 40% more performance at 40% more heat, using 40% more energy, costing 40% more...not so great! While yes, you can only go so far with optimizations, its also about as impressive as fermi if you give no better performance/power. Fermi actually went backwards. If you dont care about that, well, a lot of people dont, but i shows the card as a whole to be a failiure in efficiency. I dont want a AMD failiure in efficiency just to take the performance crown by 2%. Thats what im getting at.
  17. ares1214 said:
    Not entirely true. Barts is just previous gen with evergreen controller and having a lot of shaders cut down.


    Its still based on the same architecture as the 5xxx, but it has refinements, some of which where taken from their exploits with Evergreen.

    ares1214 said:
    The ROP held back the shaders of the previous gen, so even though the 5870 had 1600, say 1200 were in use. This is part of the reason why the 5850 and 5870 has almost identical performance clock for clock.


    All of the shaders where in use, but each and every game stresses cards differently. Some will benefit from this spec or that. But, yes the ROPs did hold them back.

    ares1214 said:
    So while Barts is very impressive, all it really is is taking away, not so much rebuilding. 69xx on the other hand is suppose to be the really new one. Barts was more of taking away from Cypress than it was building onto Juniper.


    The 69xx will still be based on the Cypress architecture, but is supposed to incorporate even more changes. It will also have a larger die, of course.

    ares1214 said:
    69xx will be the real test if they can EFFICIENTLY add transistors. Like i said, 40% more performance, great, 40% more performance at 40% more heat, using 40% more energy, costing 40% more...not so great! While yes, you can only go so far with optimizations, its also about as impressive as fermi if you give no better performance/power. Fermi actually went backwards. If you dont care about that, well, a lot of people dont...


    First of all, efficiency NEVER enters into the highend. Its the low end and mid range that we see efficiency. IE the 68xx series being much more efficient than previous Cyprus based cards and the GTX 460 being much more efficient than G100. Really if your looking for efficiency, then ignore the 69xx series all together, because even if they ARE efficient for a high end card, they will still pale in comparison the low or midrange cards. The high end is all about performance, even price is secondary.

    ares1214 said:
    but i shows the card as a whole to be a failiure in efficiency. I dont want a AMD failiure in efficiency just to take the performance crown by 2%. Thats what im getting at.


    Ares, they are are products, they pass or fail on sales which are determined by the other qualities such as features, performance, efficiency, and demand.

    If you are refering to your personal opinion of pass or fail, well then fair enough. However, even if it is not what you wanted it to be, be mindful of its advantages especially when you make recommendations. I want a killer single GPU card, and if I need to plug 2 8 pin PCI connectors into it, I will gladly if the performance is there, but that's just me.
  18. AMW1011 said:
    Its still based on the same architecture as the 5xxx, but it has refinements, some of which where taken from their exploits with Evergreen.


    All of the shaders where in use, but each and every game stresses cards differently. Some will benefit from this spec or that. But, yes the ROPs did hold them back.


    The 69xx will still be based on the Cypress architecture, but is supposed to incorporate even more changes. It will also have a larger die, of course.


    First of all, efficiency NEVER enters into the highend. Its the low end and mid range that we see efficiency. IE the 68xx series being much more efficient than previous Cyprus based cards and the GTX 460 being much more efficient than G100. Really if your looking for efficiency, then ignore the 69xx series all together, because even if they ARE efficient for a high end card, they will still pale in comparison the low or midrange cards. The high end is all about performance, even price is secondary.


    Ares, they are are products, they pass or fail on sales which are determined by the other qualities such as features, performance, efficiency, and demand.

    If you are refering to your personal opinion of pass or fail, well then fair enough. However, even if it is not what you wanted it to be, be mindful of its advantages especially when you make recommendations. I want a killer single GPU card, and if I need to plug 2 8 pin PCI connectors into it, I will gladly if the performance is there, but that's just me.


    Oh i agree, but if they need to up the power consumption equally to the amount of performance they get, is it really an upgrade? The reason i think fermi failed aside from being 6 months late is that yes, it gave about 17% more performance (5870 vs 480). However it also used 35% more power and cost 35% more. Thats going backwards. If Cayman uses more power, well i have a kilowatt PSU for a reason. But if Cayman doesnt have the FPS to back up the power needed, then id be pretty disappointed.
  19. ares1214 said:
    Oh i agree, but if they need to up the power consumption equally to the amount of performance they get, is it really an upgrade? The reason i think fermi failed aside from being 6 months late is that yes, it gave about 17% more performance (5870 vs 480). However it also used 35% more power and cost 35% more. Thats going backwards. If Cayman uses more power, well i have a kilowatt PSU for a reason. But if Cayman doesnt have the FPS to back up the power needed, then id be pretty disappointed.


    With this I agree, though I think the GTX 470 was a great card, and still is, even if its a power hog. All depends on price too.

    If the 6970 comes out and has a TPD of 255w, but only performance 10% faster than the GTX 480, but costs $300 I'll one without a second thought.
  20. AMW1011 said:
    With this I agree, though I think the GTX 470 was a great card, and still is, even if its a power hog. All depends on price too.

    If the 6970 comes out and has a TPD of 255w, but only performance 10% faster than the GTX 480, but costs $300 I'll one without a second thought.


    Oh definitely, but if it costs $450 like its suppose to, id be pretty pissed.
Ask a new question

Read More

Power Supplies Connection Xion Cable Components Product