Does someone know how reliable is the Q-Tec 550 Watt PSU ?
I didn't found anything on such PSU on THG files. This PSU is very cheap but I am afraid of its reliability.
Principle of the highest harassment for engineers says: having two events, one bad and one favorable, with the same probability to occur, it is most probable that the bad event will occur
I don't believe always to the features reported in the side-label. Anyway it reports: +5>35A, +3.3>20A (MAX +5/+3.3 = 285 W), +12>14A.
I have edited my original post because, sincerely, I forgot the specifications for the PSU. After I went again to the computer shop I wrote the data and reported them correctly.
The link given for the Q-Tec test is very interesting. Maybe I will buy the stuff (60 Euros)
I have to do a choice between an Enermax 365 W (max 185 W on 3.3 and 5 V) and the Q-tec 550. Quality or numbers ?
Principle of the highest harassment for engineers says: having two events, one bad and one favorable, with the same probability to occur, it is most probable that the bad event will occur <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by unoc on 03/12/03 10:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
well for a direct comparison the enermax 550W i have is rated for: 3.3V = 40A 5V = 46A 12V = 24A.
So as you can see there is considerable differences, despite them both being "550W psu's"
Personally i would get the lower rated enermax... You may not get quite as much total current able to be supplied, but quality counts and ive heard of very few enermaxes failing.
<b><i>Poloticians and Nappies should be changed often... For much the same reason.</b></i>
Thanks LHG
You convinced me, even because THG tested the Enermax 365 W and it cames out a real power of about 390 W which is absolutely enough for my need.
Principle of the highest harassment for engineers says: having two events, one bad and one favorable, with the same probability to occur, it is most probable that the bad event will occur
35A @ 5V = 175W, 20A @ 3.3V, = 66W, 14A @ 12V = 168W. Add about 20W or the negative and standby voltages, and you get a total of 429W, or far less than 550W rating. It also makes no sense that the combined power rating for +5V and +3.3V is 285W because that's more than 175W + 66W. Are the discrepancies due to misprints or to bad arithmetic?
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.