Skip to main content

Five 550 And 600 W 80 PLUS Platinum Power Supplies, Tested

Results: EarthWatts Platinum 550 W

Efficiency According to the 80 PLUS Specification

Efficiency by Output Power

We tested the Antec EarthWatts Platinum 550 W’s compliance with the 80 PLUS Platinum spec by loading up mostly the +12 V rails. We were surprised to see that it barely missed the 80 PLUS Platinum efficiency spec at half and full loads, falling short of both marks by 0.7 percentage points.

However, the EarthWatts Platinum 550 W still complies with the Platinum spec, because the test method used by the 80 PLUS organization differs from ours. As explained by Antec, 80 PLUS loads the rails according to a manufacturer’s spec sheet. This causes the 3.3 V and 5 V rails to be loaded more, and the +12 V rails loaded less than in our more realistic scenario. Due to this discrepancy, we plan to shed more light on the 80 PLUS organization’s testing methodology in a future article.

With all of that said, Antec's EarthWatts Platinum 550 W is still a highly efficient PSU that easily masters all the other tests in our round-up. This unit passes the ripple and noise test with flying colors, and stays well below acceptable maximums.

A Closer Look at the PCB

Antec's EarthWatts Platinum line of power supplies are OEM versions of FSP Platinum models, though the black PCB does bear the Antec logo.

No corners are cut at the input filter. To the contrary, we counted three Y capacitors, two X capacitors, and three choke coils. When we examined the components and the PCB layout, we found a strong similarity to the FSP Aurum family. While most capacitors are made by Chemi-Con in Japan, we also found a few capacitors made by Taiwan-based CapXon, but we don’t deem this to be a quality issue. Also worth mentioning, the soldering quality on this unit is excellent.

  • what? no overload it until it blows test?

    and i was making popcorn.
    Reply
  • mousseng
    Is that a typo in the first chart for Kingwin's Lazer? It claims that it fails 80 Plus's 50% load spec (82% of 92%); I assume that was meant to say 92% (since that's what the chart below it shows).

    Pleasant read, though, I like PSU reviews.
    Reply
  • What happen to Seasonic? They have the 520W fanless SS-520FL Platinum version. No PSU test is complete without a seasonic to compare to, in my own opinion.
    Reply
  • dudewitbow
    jupiter optimus maximusWhat happen to Seasonic? They have the 520W fanless SS-520FL Platinum version. No PSU test is complete without a seasonic to compare to, in my own opinion.they asked for vendors for the PSUs. Theres the offshoot chance that seasonic declined the offer. On other sites, the 520w fanless seasonic unit was compared to Rosewill's 500w silent night unit. The seasonic unit I believe in that review barely edged out a victory.
    Reply
  • cangelini
    iknowhowtofixitEither the Rosewill FORTRESS was defective or your calibration was off for the last test. Your o-scope shots do not match those of other highly credible reviewers. Also, I'm curious of your testing methodology, but it was not listed.I believe this is still applicable to all of the power supply testing our German team does: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/psu-test-equipment,2657.html. I'm waiting for confirmation that I'm right.

    Edit: Yup, that's the correct testing equipment/procedure!
    Reply
  • Dun dun dun..................... no acoustic performance measured, the only reason some people buy high end PSU's.
    Reply
  • sebbesapa
    WOW! Thanks a bunch for including the 25watt "Low-Power PC" efficiency test! All other reviewers stop @ 20% load witch is not "idle" or "low load" at all. :-)
    Reply
  • sanilmahambre
    Power supply unit is where a system builder cannot use a word "BUDGET"
    Reply
  • jaideep1337
    I don't understand
    Why is the 80 plus spec officially test by having more load on the 3.3v and 5v rails?
    Clearly loading the 12v rail would give us a better overall image
    Reply
  • jaquith
    Interesting, IMHO the most important aspect is 'Ripple Voltage' @ Rated Load. The only mention I see is a vague reference in your conclusion page.
    Never mind I see the ripple data buried in the individual tests. It would have been better in the summary side-by-side tests.

    Nice article.
    Reply