Jump to content


Time for new Power Supply?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
52 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   Ozidave

Ozidave

    Multithreader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 08:26 PM

NRD, on Aug 23 2004, 07:00 AM, said:

As I've stated over and over, wattage is not the only concern.  Buying a 500w power supply that delivers 14 amps max  to +12v is going to be a problem.
Hi NRD,Not really, it's only a matter of distribution.200w divided by 12v = 16.6 amps300w divided by 12v = 25.0 amps400w divided by 12v = 33.3 amps500w divided by 12v = 41.6 ampsAs you can see the amperage varies, then the current dividers come into play.Usually ceramic current-limiting resistors to distribute the current in such a way that the Mobo and the CPU always get a constant 8-10 amps, whatever.Using the 500w that leaves 21.6amps for distribution.The CPU & Chassis Fan 1 to 2.22a (26.64w) probably Max. (if it's not already included in the Mobo requirements)That leaves 19.38ASo you can see what I'm getting at. You would have to know the W/A rating of all the equipment you are running to calculate the required amperage to determine the minimum PS required.And ibe is right when he indicated that ALL of the peripherals are NOT all drawing operating-current at the same time and some are in stand-by-mode and drawing next-to-nothing.Amperage is a reservoir of power the PS is capable of producing....... If you are NOT drawing on it.... you are NOT using it.So 500w doesn't mean that you are using 500w.... you may only be using/drawing 300w.At least the PS won't be working very hard......... sort of a like Sherman Tank running in idle. :D But then again... Nice to know it's there if you ever need that bit extra.Higher amperage requirements also means thicker wiring... DC Current doesn't travel very well through thin cables. Or else, more distribution cables out of the PS. And depending on the way the PS is distributed, you would be better-off using ALL of the outlets for the peripherals rather than skimp-on extending them.

#27 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 22 August 2004 - 10:50 PM

I think you are incorrect. If I understand your post correctly, using your math a 420w power supply = 35 amp to 12v  (420/12=35)Please take a look at the following image.LinkThis is a 420w power supply only providing a Max 16A.  Where is the other 19a? and remember 16a represents MAX value.  Did we forget about the other rails?Which brings me to another point raised here about not drawing the maximum value for each device. This is true, however that wattage rating on the side of your power supply represents its MAXIMUM output. To use that figure as a reference you would be foolishly relying on your power supply to operate at its maximum output at all times. Doing so will quickly end the productive life of the component not to mention voltage irregularities.I prefer to use the chart in the article I referenced. I will use the lowest watt rating and my system as modelAGP card = 30wPCI  card =  5wNIC         =  4wFloppy     =  5wFANS       = 9w (CPU, Chipset, Case)2 Optical  =  20wIDE Drive = 5wMobo        =25wRAM          =64w   (8w per 128mb)Athlon       =70w-------------------------Total 237w X 1.8 =427w  (X 1.8 to account for disproportionate draw on +12v rail)From site referenced previously (Link)"...For overall power supply wattage, add the requirement for each device in your system, then multiply by 1.8. (The multiplier takes into account that today’s systems draw disproportionally on the +12V output. Furthermore, power supplies are more efficient and reliable when loaded to 30% - 70% of maximum capacity..."As stated, I used lowest watt rating for each component. Choosing a middle figure raises the count considerably. You can count on the following to be used continously in a default system. Processor, Mobo, NIC, AGP, IDE, RAM, Fans. Even without the 1.8 multiplier, the total is 237w  add a second hard drive, more case fans, lights, pci card, usb device  etc and you are increasing the wattage requirements further. Please tell me again how a MAX 350w PS or a MAX 420w PS with weakly powered 12v rails is going to remain stable.

#28 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 01:40 AM

ibe98765, on Aug 22 2004, 04:49 AM, said:

Let's think logically here. ......And just because a power supply is 500 watts, doesn't mean it is better than a 350 watt one.
Well, lets do some math and see.I'll compare two  power supplies from the same manufacturer.  A 500w model and a 350w which can typically be found bundled in plain vanilla PC cases.Note, that ATX Power supplies can provide up to the Max of the combined +3.3 & +5 volt limit as long as the INDIVIDUAL current rating is not exceeded.First value is power rail, second is listed MAX Amps third is MAX Watt outputThe 350W+3.3v  * 20a = 66 watts+5v * 30a = 150 watts+12v * 12a =144 watts+5v stndby * 2a = 10 watts-5v * 0.5a = 2.5 watts-12v * 0.8 = 9.6 wattsTotal = 150+144+10+2.5+9.6 = 316 MAX watts output(remember 66 watts excluded, as 150 watts is limit for 3.3/5v combination)So, that 350 watt power supply is only capable of producing 316 MAX watts of which 144 MAX is available to +12v, the hungriest rail in your system.Now the 500w+3.3v  * 30a = 99 watts+5v * 45a = 225 watts+12v * 18a =216 watts+5v stndby * 2a = 10 watts-5v * 0.5a = 2.5 watts-12v * 0.8 = 9.6 wattsTotal = 225+216+10+2.5+9.6 = 463 MAX watts output(remember 99 watts excluded, as 225 watts is limit for 3.3/5v combination)So, that 500 watt power supply is only capable of producing 463 MAX watts of which 216 MAX is available to +12vSo in this case, I guess a 500 watt power supply is better.  Consider the fact that the Processor is going to consume 70 watts from +12v add optical drives, IDE, Fans you are coming close to 144 MAX that the 350w power supply can out put. So as I said before, simply relying on the MAX wattage plastered on the side of the power supply is not enough. Rail amperage must also be considered. +12v being most important Will your PC still run? Sure. Will you be undervolting your components? Yep.  Over time, as you continually push you PS to its limit, one of two things are probably going to happen...You will start getting mysterious errors, blue screens, spontaneous re-boots  etc or you will push the power button and nothing will happen. In either case, I just hope that when your inadequate power supply does finally go, it doesn't take your Mother Board, Processor etc etc with it.I'm currently staring at a friends  year old "AMD/Intel approved" 400w power supply with a nice, big black scorch mark on the back that I must replace because they instructed that "their computer is broke"Do as you wish.

#29 OFFLINE   ibe98765

ibe98765

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 05:44 AM

NRD, on Aug 22 2004, 06:48 PM, said:

From site referenced previously (Link)"...For overall power supply wattage, add the requirement for each device in your system, then multiply by 1.8. (The multiplier takes into account that today’s systems draw disproportionally on the +12V output. Furthermore, power supplies are more efficient and reliable when loaded to 30% - 70% of maximum capacity..."
NRD, I can see that you are passionate about this, but I think you are wrong.  Unfortunately, I don't know enough about electricity to contend on this subject.But by following the calculations at the link you provided, and using the 1.8 fudge factor, I should be running a power supply with 450 watts.Instead, my 4 year old Dell Precision 220 (a server level system) has a 230 watt power supply.  It also had a 3 year warranty.  I doubt that the people at Dell would put in an underpowered supply that would run close to the edge in a system that, back then, was intended to be sold to a business.  Dell may piss all over regular consumers, but they know that they better not do that to a business.Since I've had this system, I have added a CD/RW drive, a 2nd hard drive and a sound card.  All together, I've got:1 PIII 866 chip2x128 PC800 Rambus memory815 dual processor Intel mobo2 10K U160 SCSI drives1 IDE CD/RW1 IDE CD/R1 floppy1 video card1 sound card1 modem card1 86mm fanI don't get any weird errors, blue screens, etc.  The system runs nicely.  My REAL LIFE experience would seem to be in conflict with your theoretical posturings as to what will/might happen with such a low output power supply. I still believe that it is a rare person who needs a 400 or 500 watt power supply.   What people do need is a GOOD power supply and IMO, a line conditioner or at least a good UPS (which cleans up the power but not as much as a separate conditioner).

#30 OFFLINE   Ozidave

Ozidave

    Multithreader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 08:41 AM

NRD, on Aug 23 2004, 12:18 PM, said:

I think you are incorrect. If I understand your post correctly, using your math a 420w power supply = 35 amp to 12v  (420/12=35).
It's not my maths, it's a fact, it's an equasion that is constant irrespective of the W/V.Wattage divided by Voltage gives you the Amp-Hour.

Quote

This is a 420w power supply only providing a Max 16A.  Where is the other 19a? and remember 16a represents MAX value.  Did we forget about the other rails?
I wasn't being specific! as I said further down "that leaves 19.38A".Your picture also says 16A @ 12v, 35A @ 5v, 20A @ 3.3. While the last two seem high, just remember that as the voltage goes down the amperage increases. It also depends on how the AC transformer is coiled and tapped, or whether it's a single-tapped coil or Multi-Wound.Quote:As you can see the amperage varies, then the current dividers come into play.Usually ceramic current-limiting resistors (Edit: The big white thing in your picture, with additional V/R's to trim it) to distribute the current in such a way that the Mobo and the CPU always get a constant 8-10 amps, whatever.Using the 500w that leaves 21.6amps for distribution.The CPU & Chassis Fan 1 to 2.22a (26.64w) probably Max. (if it's not already included in the Mobo requirements)That leaves 19.38A End of Quote.edit: (to be distributed as they see fit for the 5v and 3v rail)

Quote

Which brings me to another point raised here about not drawing the maximum value for each device. This is true, however that wattage rating on the side of your power supply represents its MAXIMUM output. To use that figure as a reference you would be foolishly relying on your power supply to operate at its maximum output at all times. Doing so will quickly end the productive life of the component not to mention voltage irregularities.
Yea! you could probably cook an egg on it before it burns......  :P

Quote

Even without the 1.8 multiplier, the total is 237w  add a second hard drive, more case fans, lights, pci card, usb device  etc and you are increasing the wattage requirements further.
Yea! you also have to consider whether it's an inductive or resistive load also.

Quote

Please tell me again how a MAX 350w PS or a MAX 420w PS with weakly powered 12v rails is going to remain stable.
What are you calling 'rails', the little skinny tracks on the circuit board the the RED (positive) wire is connected to?Positive is only the resistive side of the load, it's the negative that carries the brunt, that's why its printed circuit is heavier.

#31 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 11:35 AM

:P  NRD and Ozidave, very informative discussion. I'd also be all ears for Cluttermagnet and Nathan's opinion.

#32 OFFLINE   longgone

longgone

    Thread Kahuna

  • Forum MVP
  • 5,155 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 02:12 PM

:hmm:  :hmm: Is Ohm's law included here too ..........   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Dale

U.S. Navy (ret.) '62 - '84
Communications (Radioman)

Reg. Linux User 412421

#33 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 02:17 PM

ibe98765, on Aug 23 2004, 04:42 AM, said:

NRD, I can see that you are passionate about this, but I think you are wrong.  Unfortunately, I don't know enough about electricity to contend on this subject.But by following the calculations at the link you provided, and using the 1.8 fudge factor, I should be running a power supply with 450 watts.
Using the 1.8 "fudge factor" as you called it, and using your stats as provided, the calculation comes to 300 watts.  If you're going to debate, at least do me the service of proper calculation.1 PIII 866 chip= 38w2x128 PC800 Rambus memory= 16w815 dual processor Intel mobo=25w2 10K U160 SCSI drives=20w1 IDE CD/RW=10w1 IDE CD/R=10w1 floppy=5w1 video card=30w1 sound card=5w1 modem card=5w1 86mm fan=3wTotal = 167x1.8=300

Quote

Instead, my 4 year old Dell Precision 220 (a server level system) has a 230 watt power supply.  It also had a 3 year warranty.  I doubt that the people at Dell would put in an underpowered supply that would run close to the edge in a system that, back then, was intended to be sold to a business.  Dell may piss all over regular consumers, but they know that they better not do that to a business.
I should not even dignify that with a reply as it is beyond ridiculous. There is an admin of this forum who ran into the exact problem I speak of with another big name maker. They also decided to use a 200w power supply and it was not up to the task of a larger hard disk.

Quote

I don't get any weird errors, blue screens, etc.  The system runs nicely.  My REAL LIFE experience would seem to be in conflict with your theoretical posturings as to what will/might happen with such a low output power supply. I still believe that it is a rare person who needs a 400 or 500 watt power supply.   What people do need is a GOOD power supply and IMO, a line conditioner or at least a good UPS (which cleans up the power but not as much as a separate conditioner).
These aren't my "theoritical posturings" It did not pull them from the ether as you seem to be doing.  To base your total argument on your "personal computing habits" is flawed. I challenge you to place your 200w or even 300w power supply that runs "fine"  in a system such as mine, which is not cutting edge by any standard.  If it runs at all, I doubt it will run for very long.

#34 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 23 August 2004 - 02:43 PM

Ozidave, on Aug 23 2004, 07:39 AM, said:

It's not my maths, it's a fact, it's an equasion that is constant irrespective of the W/V.Wattage divided by Voltage gives you the Amp-Hour.
I was not reffering to W/V as I used the equation in my reply.  I was reffering to the fact that you incorrectly used 500w/12v  The full 500w is not available to 12v.  In my 500w example,  a Maximum of 16a is available to +12v period. Using your method, 42a should be available. Its not. The wattage is divided among the 12 3.3 & 5. as well as -12 -5 & +5 standby.The 500w power supply I listed can only supply a maximum of 16amps at full capacity BEFORE the CPU is attached. The Motherboard draws on +3.3 & 5v

Quote

I wasn't being specific! as I said further down "that leaves 19.38A".
No It doesn't. You are starting out with 16 amps maxium with the power supply I listed.

Quote

Your picture also says 16A @ 12v, 35A @ 5v, 20A @ 3.3. While the last two seem high
I didn't make the power supply, whether it seems high to you is not the issue, it is what it is. That is what the manufacturer listed as Max amperage for that unit.

Quote

What are you calling 'rails', the little skinny tracks on the circuit board the the RED (positive) wire is connected to?
Rails is an old electronics term that used to describe metal bars or strips that provide a particular voltage. Today, in relation to power supplies, it just refers to various voltage lines that power a PC. +12v +3.3v etc etc  ;)Wheww..This quoting replying is tiring stuff. :hmm:

#35 OFFLINE   Agent007

Agent007

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 02:09 PM

I'm wondering if this is really related to the PSU. Why is the problem occuring only in Windows? If the PSU was at fault, wouldnt it be obvious at boot time?

#36 OFFLINE   GolfProRM

GolfProRM

    Mr. Incredible

  • Forum MVP
  • 2,910 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 02:22 PM

Agent007, on Aug 24 2004, 01:07 PM, said:

I'm wondering if this is really related to the PSU. Why is the problem occuring only in Windows? If the PSU was at fault, wouldnt it be obvious at boot time?
It only happened once, and hasn't done it since (a couple days), so I'm not as concerned about it as I was previously...I'm still going to buy a new PS here in a week or so, but I'm not in as much of a hurry as everything still looks good (all my voltages are normal)

#37 OFFLINE   ibe98765

ibe98765

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 05:15 PM

NRD said:

Using the 1.8 "fudge factor" as you called it, and using your stats as provided, the calculation comes to 300 watts. If you're going to debate, at least do me the service of proper calculation.
I used the calculator at this URL (which was provided by Longgone in post #2 in this thread) - http://www.jscustomp...m/power_supply/Below, in parenthesis, I've put the wattage's from the calculator next to your quoted values.   It comes up with 227 vs. your 167.  Adding in your 1.8 fudge factor gives 409.1 PIII 866 chip= 38w (35)2x128 PC800 Rambus memory= 16w (20)815 dual processor Intel mobo=25w (25)2 10K U160 SCSI drives=20w (25x2=50)1 IDE CD/RW=10w (20)1 IDE CD/R=10w (20)1 floppy=5w (5)1 video card=30w (35)1 sound card=5w (7)1 modem card=5w (4)1 86mm fan=3w (3)Total = 167x1.8=300Calculator total (227 X 1.8 = 409)I realize these wattage's are approximations, but methinks a little less "attitude" would be appropriate! :(

NRD said:

I should not even dignify that with a reply as it is beyond ridiculous. There is an admin of this forum who ran into the exact problem I speak of with another big name maker. They also decided to use a 200w power supply and it was not up to the task of a larger hard disk.
And this proves something? It should be clear to most people by now that you can't compare different PSU's at different wattage's with different systems.

NRD said:

These aren't my "theoritical posturings" It did not pull them from the ether as you seem to be doing. To base your total argument on your "personal computing habits" is flawed.
So your statements are an ABSOLUTE then?  There are no exceptions to your rules, right?  And so therefore, my real experience must be flawed?  B) Hmmm...  I guess I am that one in a million person then.  Were I only so lucky on my lottery tickets. :huh:  

NRD said:

I challenge you to place your 200w or even 300w power supply that runs "fine" in a system such as mine, which is not cutting edge by any standard. If it runs at all, I doubt it will run for very long.
This is a pure assumptive statement with no evidence to back it up. ;)

#38 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 05:52 PM

Quote

but methinks a little less "attitude" would be appropriate! dry.gif
Perhaps you would do well to take your own advice where "attitude" is concerned. Comments like "fudge factor" & "theoretical posturings" is not going to get an endearing response. I'm starting to realize you are now arguing for arguments sake.  By your own admission, you don't have the knowledge to make a clear argument,  which I'm seeing evidence of.  

Quote

This is a pure assumptive statement with no evidence to back it up
Kind of like these?"I doubt that the people at Dell would put in an underpowered supply that would run close to the edge in a system that, back then, was intended to be sold to a business.  Dell may piss all over regular consumers, but they know that they better not do that to a business""I still believe that it is a rare person who needs a 400 or 500 watt power supply"" And just because a power supply is 500 watts, doesn't mean it is better than a 350 watt one""I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the bigger the power supply (in terms of wattage), the more power it consumes and the more heat it generates""My max power requirements are 17 watts MORE than the max my power supply provides. And I don't have any problems"

#39 OFFLINE   Ozidave

Ozidave

    Multithreader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:04 PM

NRD, on Aug 24 2004, 04:11 AM, said:

Wheww..This quoting replying is tiring stuff. B)
Hi NRD,  ;) I'm all worn out thinking about it.  :huh:   And we haven't even discussed what happpens to AC voltage and current when it's converted to DC. Is there any loss in current and to what degree.  :( If it's the AC tranny that is rated at 500w, and not the DC output, could it be that the current is reduced by about 50% when converting to DC? ;) That would make it about 20A DC, and fit in with your calculations. :(

#40 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:27 PM

Ozidave, on Aug 24 2004, 05:02 PM, said:

Hi NRD,  :huh: I'm all worn out thinking about it.  :(   And we haven't even discussed what happpens to AC voltage and current when it's converted to DC. Is there any loss in current and to what degree.  B) If it's the AC tranny that is rated at 500w, and not the DC output, could it be that the current is reduced by about 50% when converting to DC? ;)
Hi OZI,That 50% conversion loss you're talking about is applicable to  linear power supply's.  An example is one of those AC adapters used for answering machines. Around 50% is lost in the form of heat. PC power supplies are switching power supplies. Very little is lost in the conversion, the trade off is the interference they produce, which is why they come in metal cases.

#41 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:40 PM

Ozi, I think the problem is that you are relying on that figure on the side of the power supply. It may say 500 watts but what it can deliver in usable power is usually much less. The manufacturers are fudging the numbers a bit.A good analogy is PC monitors or Horsepower.  It may say "17 inch monitor" but the viewable is usually about an inch or more less. Same thing with horsepower that many auto manufacturers use. 255 hp is what the engine can produce, but that is not what you are getting at the wheels"Same thing with power supplies. If you count up the total watts it will come to 500 but what is actually available for use is usually much less. The don't use the +3.3 V / +5 V combination limit, they count each separately.  Thats why its so important to check the amp ratings for each rail. You can judge what you are actually getting. For a modern system, I personally would not touch a PS that can't deliver at least 20a to +12v no matter what the watt rating.

#42 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:46 PM

Quote

1 PIII 866 chip= 38w (35)
The P3 866EB could only be 22-23w. NRD's Barton processor would be consuming 68 to 69w.

#43 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:52 PM

I got the Pentium III Processor 38W figure from the chart at extremeoverclocking. I used the the same chart for all other calculations, using the lowest watt rating listed.They list an AMD athlon processor & P4 at 70w also.

#44 OFFLINE   longgone

longgone

    Thread Kahuna

  • Forum MVP
  • 5,155 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 06:58 PM

;)  :D My turn.....  horsepower.... (I know a little about it). Using a sem truck/tractor as an example... a two axle semi with a motor rated at say 600HP is actually going to deliver to the rear axle 85 pct of that  rated horsepower. If it is a three axle semi it will deliver 75 pct. The adverstised horsepower referred to as BHP (brake horsepower) is actually measured at the flywheel before it starts to lose horsepower due to the friction of all the components that come after the flywheel.    okay back to the power supply now ..   :D  :(
Dale

U.S. Navy (ret.) '62 - '84
Communications (Radioman)

Reg. Linux User 412421

#45 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:03 PM

longgone, on Aug 24 2004, 05:56 PM, said:

:D  :D My turn.....  horsepower.... (I know a little about it). Using a sem truck/tractor as an example... a two axle semi with a motor rated at say 600HP is actually going to deliver to the rear axle 85 pct of that  rated horsepower. If it is a three axle semi it will deliver 75 pct. The adverstised horsepower referred to as BHP (brake horsepower) is actually measured at the flywheel before it starts to lose horsepower due to the friction of all the components that come after the flywheel.    okay back to the power supply now ..   :D  ;)
That was my point exactly.:(  People generally don't use the engine without the car attached. Its misleading. My car is rated 255bhp.... to the wheels is more like 220. (Friend  had his dyno'd) :D

#46 OFFLINE   Ozidave

Ozidave

    Multithreader

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:18 PM

Does anyone want to know how much a 1400w x 240v Air Conditioner pulls at start-up. It's constant rating is about 5.6A and because the motors are inductive they require more current to start (Fan and Compressor).If you multiply 5.6A x 1.8 you get 10A to start, 5.6A to run. Close enough I think and because the compressor cuts in and out, its overall rating must be 10A.CD drives are much the same. So depending on what you do and what you have installed, is what dictates the amount of power you require.The same can be said for most of the peripherals including the sound-card.. the louder the music... the more current required. :hmm:Then there's operating-temperature to consider also. (and on it goes). ;) So Ibe, if you or anyone increase their PS, they'll avoid half of the problems that people write about here. :(

#47 OFFLINE   NRD

NRD

    Message Mogul

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 07:30 PM

;)  Be careful Ozi, or IBE's gonna be pissed at you too :( :D  :D Seriously though, that last statement of yours couldn't be more true.  I read an article that stated over 30% of PC problems are power related and usually one of the first question asked at a Mobo manufacturers support forum is "What are your rail voltages"I doubt its because they have some weird electrical fetish..:D  :D  its because they have seen the same problems over and over and a common culprit is undervolted components.

#48 OFFLINE   b2cm

b2cm

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,349 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 09:21 PM

I mentioned the variance in CPU wattage as an explanation for Ibe's system power requirements. With an integrated microATX board (especially with onboard video) the requirements would probably still be lower (than a full ATX with expansion cards)? In which case, a 300w PSU would suffice?

Quote

... one of the first question asked ....
For anyone who fixes PCs, too, at even a faint hint that the problem may be hardware-related.

#49 OFFLINE   ibe98765

ibe98765

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 10:32 PM

Ozidave, on Aug 24 2004, 03:16 PM, said:

So Ibe, if you or anyone increase their PS, they'll avoid half of the problems that people write about here. :(
But my real life experience with this and other similarly "underpowered" systems says that this isn't necessarily true.  And I'd bet that others here have the same experience.  Not everyone is running a 300/400/500 watt PSU and not everyone running the smaller PSU's are having problems.Therefore, there must be another more reasonable explanation.  I believe that explanation comes down to the QUALITY of the power delivered and the QUALITY of the PSU, not the SIZE of the PSU (in wattage, amperes or whatever).

#50 OFFLINE   ibe98765

ibe98765

    Posting Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,467 posts

Posted 24 August 2004 - 10:47 PM

NRD said:

Perhaps you would do well to take your own advice where "attitude" is concerned. Comments like "fudge factor" & "theoretical posturing's" is not going to get an endearing response.
I don't see what you are having a problem with.  Your 1.8 factor is a true "fudge factor", isn't it?  There is no science you can quote to back up this figure, is there?  And while you have written a lot, you not provided any independt articles or cites to backup your contentions. Which is why I [nicely] call what you write "theoretical posturing's".

NRD said:

Kind of like these?"I doubt that the people at Dell would put in an underpowered supply that would run close to the edge in a system that, back then, was intended to be sold to a business.  Dell may piss all over regular consumers, but they know that they better not do that to a business""I still believe that it is a rare person who needs a 400 or 500 watt power supply"" And just because a power supply is 500 watts, doesn't mean it is better than a 350 watt one""I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the bigger the power supply (in terms of wattage), the more power it consumes and the more heat it generates""My max power requirements are 17 watts MORE than the max my power supply provides. And I don't have any problems"
Nope.  The difference is that all of these make sense in context.  What you said and that I specifically referred to, didn't... :(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users