Question 240Vac electric system for a 115V-230V power supply?

[oneGamerE]

Well, I just bought a Raidmax ss530 willing to connect a GTX560 for the next months.
CNET Specs - https://www.cnet.com/products/raidmax-hybrid-series-rx-530ss-power-supply-530-watt/

1. My contry's eletric system is 240V with 50-60Hz of freuency, as well as my energy cable that goes to the psu says 240Vac.
So, can it be a problem when the psu says 115-230V required and 47Hz-63Hz on it?

2. Second, I dont like the minimum noise it does, and I tought this little noise would only come out with at least a GPU on my board and while playing something.

My pc rig is so simple

1 HD
4gb ram
core 2 quad Q9550
hometheather sound system and Some IO devices

so what you guys think?

 

[jonnyguru]

And...you guys can help me with this too,

A Motherboard with a PCI e x16 1.0 interface holding a GTX 560Ti which suports PCI e x16 2.0 will have half the performance of a PCI e x16 2.0 motherboard?

Example:

1) a PCe x16 2.0 MBoard running Farcry4 in 1366x768 on"some graphic settings" with minFPS(31) and maxFPS(50)

2) What would be the FPS at a PCI e x16 1.0 MBoard with same settings?

" " Looks like a secondary mathemathics question hann!! 🙃

Regards

That's not how it works. Like your power supply, it seems you make a lot of assumptions.

The reason it's stated as x1 and x2 as opposed to 1x and 2x, etc. is not because it's "2x faster". The x# designates the number of data lanes.

You're not going to see half the performance. You might lose about 10% tops depending on what you're doing.

 

[jsmithepa]

1. Y'all confusing the guy with all the voltage efficiency, he just wants a yes/no. YES YOUR ELECTRICITY IS FINE.

Good quality electricity at your locale? that's another issue. Got money? attach a UPS to it.

2. Noise is in the ears of the beholder, a little noise is normal, but for sure cheap psu=cheap potentially noisier fan. Nothing is gonna blow, is whether the human ears able to tolerate. Ur using to it, good to go, stop obsessing.

 

[oneGamerE]

No. It's JUST efficiency. They hardly stress the PSUs in an efficiency test and they're done at room temperature. And in a lot of cases, unscrupulous brands will submit one unit for testing and then sell something completely different. It's not like Raidmax is a reputable brand.

You're also having a lot of faith in what Raidmax is telling you the PSU is capable of. You think it's really capable of 40A on the +12V rail just because the label says so? You think the PSU actually has properly working protections in case of a failure?

There are no reviews of this PSU, which should be a warning sign within itself.



I'm not confused. "intensity"? That is not a term used in electronics. You do know what CURRENT is, right? It's what we measure in Amperes.



Probably.

The first strange thing that I saw was that in CNET.com it says V1 20A, V2 20A
https://www.cnet.com/products/raidmax-hybrid-series-rx-530ss-power-supply-530-watt/

but in PSU's website is written one single rail of 38A
https://www.raidmax.com/product_d.php?lang=en&tb=1&id=387

well i dont know if this is one of the bad quality aspects

But if you guys suggest so, I may change the PSU in future weeks, now I just wanna try to install the gtx560 and play some soft games just for testing.

keep suggestions coming, you are being a good help

 

[oneGamerE]

No. It's JUST efficiency. They hardly stress the PSUs in an efficiency test and they're done at room temperature. And in a lot of cases, unscrupulous brands will submit one unit for testing and then sell something completely different. It's not like Raidmax is a reputable brand.

You're also having a lot of faith in what Raidmax is telling you the PSU is capable of. You think it's really capable of 40A on the +12V rail just because the label says so? You think the PSU actually has properly working protections in case of a failure?

There are no reviews of this PSU, which should be a warning sign within itself.



I'm not confused. "intensity"? That is not a term used in electronics. You do know what CURRENT is, right? It's what we measure in Amperes.



Probably.

Yeah, what we measure by Amperes. I said intensity beause its similar to portuguese "current=corrente/intensidade (A) "

 

[TJ Hooker]

I'm not confused. "intensity"? That is not a term used in electronics. You do know what CURRENT is, right? It's what we measure in Amperes.

Ah, I see what they meant now. They were questioning your statement of "Lower Amps (current) produces less resistance [...]" (which I am a little puzzled by as well).

 

[TJ Hooker]

Performance impact will be minimal, you'd lose a few percent of FPS at most.

 

[Aeacus]

While you'd have half the bandwidth of PCI-E 2.0 when using PCI-E 1.0 (8 GB/sec vs 4GB/sec), in reality, performance loss is about 25% (not 50%) since PCI-E 2.0 GPU doesn't use the full bandwidth of PCI-E 2.0. More like 3/4 of it (6 GB/sec or so).

 

[TJ Hooker]

While you'd have half the bandwidth of PCI-E 2.0 when using PCI-E 1.0 (8 GB/sec vs 4GB/sec), in reality, performance loss is about 25% (not 50%) since PCI-E 2.0 GPU doesn't use the full bandwidth of PCI-E 2.0. More like 3/4 of it (6 GB/sec or so).

A GTX 1080 only loses 6% on average at 1080p from dropping from PCIe 3.0 to 1.1 (1/4 the bandwidth). https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pci-express-scaling/24.html
For an old card like a 560 Ti, the effects will be minimal. No idea where you got the number for how much bandwidth the 560 Ti uses (which can vary greatly based on game, settings, and fps).

 

[Aeacus]

For those who are wondering why there's talk about GPUs; OP made a topic where he asked about "PCI-E 1.0 interface over 2.0" and last few replies were answered to the GPU question. But it seems that mod has now merged the two topics into one where the OP's initial question about GPU got lost.

A GTX 1080 only loses 6% on average at 1080p from dropping from PCIe 3.0 to 1.1 (1/4 the bandwidth). https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pci-express-scaling/24.html
For an old card like a 560 Ti, the effects will be minimal. No idea where you got the number for how much bandwidth the 560 Ti uses (which can vary greatly based on game, settings, and fps).

Since there are many variables when it comes to the FPS, it's better to give bigger buffer (25%) rather than smaller buffer (6%) in lost performance.

Also, do read what i say. I never said that GTX 560 Ti will have 6 GB/sec bandwith on PCI-E 2.0. What i did say was that PCI-E 2.0 GPUs (could be any GPU) running in PCI-E 2.0 x16, are using about 6 GB/sec bandwidth at maximum.

Btw, i don't know from where you took the analogy between GTX 560 Ti and GTX 1080. These two GPUs are miles apart and just because GTX 1080 looses 6% performance in PCI-E 1.1 doesn't instantly mean that every other GPU ever produced will get the exact same result.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Also, do read what i say. I never said that GTX 560 Ti will have 6 GB/sec bandwith on PCI-E 2.0. What i did say was that PCI-E 2.0 GPUs (could be any GPU) running in PCI-E 2.0 x16, are using about 6 GB/sec bandwidth at maximum.

OK, regardless of whether you were talking about a 560 Ti or all PCIe 2.0 cards, where'd you get the 6GB/s max bandwidth value from?

Btw, i don't know from where you took the analogy between GTX 560 Ti and GTX 1080. These two GPUs are miles apart and just because GTX 1080 looses 6% performance in PCI-E 1.1 doesn't instantly mean that every other GPU ever produced will get the exact same result.

I guess you may want to read what I say closer as well. I never said that all cards will behave the same as the 1080, I was only using it as a reference. My point was that even a card as powerful as a 1080 only loses 6%. With a more powerful card you're going to be pushing higher graphical effects at higher framerates, which means more data traveling across the PCIe interface, meaning bandwidth should have a larger effect on performance. Despite that, and the fact that available bandwidth is reduced by 75%, it still only suffers single digit performance loss. Given that a 560 Ti will typically be handling less graphical effects, running at a lower FPS, and will only have available bandwidth reduced by 50%, I would expect the performance impact to be no worse than that seen with the 1080.

 

[jonnyguru]

Ah, I see what they meant now. They were questioning your statement of "Lower Amps (current) produces less resistance [...]" (which I am a little puzzled by as well).

I'm confused that you're confused. I thought it was common knowledge that more current produces greater resistance.

It's your voltage that tends to drop if the resistance is high enough. But if you have a load that's X amount of Amperes, THAT is going to create more resistance the higher the Amperes.

Think of a mining PC assembled by a less than savvy builder. He puts four PCIe riser cards on a SATA cable. Suddenly his SATA connectors melt. WHY? Because it's too much current.

Higher current by definition means a higher rate of electric charge flow in a circuit. Circuits move charge using electrons that are free to travel, but a given circuit (trace, wire, etc.) has a fixed number of freely moving electrons. The conductor has one free electron for each atom. As a consequence, whenever an electron collides with an atom in the circuit, the electron give the atom a little more energy because of this increased average speed. This causes the atom to vibrate more and that's what is "exhausted" as heat.

Any way... the formula used to calculate the physical heating of wire is called "I squared R losses. Power lost as heat is = (I^2)(R). I being current and R being Resistance.

That's also why larger wires, traces, etc. allow more current to flow with less resistance. Because there are more atoms.

Larger wires, traces, etc. and even larger transistors, diodes, etc. can support higher current, and therefore lower voltages because lower voltages require more current to produce the same wattage (I*V=P or Current times voltage = power, or watts). BUT.... more copper, larger diodes, larger transistors, etc. COST MORE MONEY, so that's why the "230V only" power supplies are cheaper. Because they can use cheaper parts because they can support lower current. So low that they also don't have to "waste" money on heatsinks... because the lower current produces less heat.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Yeah, I know higher temperature will raise the resistance of conductors. Higher current in itself doesn't, which is why I wanted to clarify what exactly you were referring to. The impact of heating on resistance will have a more or less negligible effect on overall ohmic losses relative to the fact that current will be ~doubled if voltage is halved.

 

[ElectrO_90]

Why is 50 Hz more efficient to generate?

It isn't - 60Hz is

50Hz vs 60Hz in operating speed. The primary difference between 50 Hz (Hertz) and 60 Hz (Hertz) is, well, 60Hz is 20% higher in frequency. For a generator or induction motor pump (in simple terms) it means 1500/3000 RPM or 1800/3600 RPM (for 60Hz). Lower the frequency will be the iron losses and eddy current losses.Apr 11, 2015
Difference between 50Hz and 60Hz frequency | GoHz.com

www.gohz.com/difference-between-50hz-and-60hz-frequency

 

[jonnyguru]

Yeah, I know higher temperature will raise the resistance of conductors.

That's not what I said. While it's true that a hotter conductor creates resistance, I said the opposite. Resistance creates heat. Both are true.

 

[TJ Hooker]

It isn't - 60Hz is

50Hz vs 60Hz in operating speed. The primary difference between 50 Hz (Hertz) and 60 Hz (Hertz) is, well, 60Hz is 20% higher in frequency. For a generator or induction motor pump (in simple terms) it means 1500/3000 RPM or 1800/3600 RPM (for 60Hz). Lower the frequency will be the iron losses and eddy current losses.Apr 11, 2015
Difference between 50Hz and 60Hz frequency | GoHz.com
www.gohz.com/difference-between-50hz-and-60hz-frequency

Oops, yeah, meant to ask why 60Hz is more efficient.

Your source seems to say that the lower the frequency, the lower the losses (which would make 50 Hz more efficient), although it's hard to tell due to the poor grammar. "Lower the frequency will be the iron losses and eddy current losses."

In reality, I believe as long as the generator is operating at the frequency it was designed for, whether it is 50 or 60 Hz doesn't really matter in terms of efficiency. Your source says as much: "There is little real difference between 50 Hertz and 60 Hertz systems, as long as the equipment is designed appropriately for the frequency."

 

[clutchc]

What gfx card are you using now on the PC?

 

[oneGamerE]

What gfx card are you using now on the PC?

No external gpu yet

 

[ElectrO_90]

Oops, yeah, meant to ask why 60Hz is more efficient.

Your source seems to say that the lower the frequency, the lower the losses (which would make 50 Hz more efficient), although it's hard to tell due to the poor grammar. "Lower the frequency will be the iron losses and eddy current losses."

In reality, I believe as long as the generator is operating at the frequency it was designed for, whether it is 50 or 60 Hz doesn't really matter in terms of efficiency. Your source says as much: "There is little real difference between 50 Hertz and 60 Hertz systems, as long as the equipment is designed appropriately for the frequency."

Well it works when you are talking about A few watts, sure. But when generating Mega/Peta watts - the savings add up.
But the problem is, since the savings are made at the generator, they are not then made at the house which uses Single Phase, because in America you need 2/3 Phase to run what 220V people would be classed as normal. You need to use thicker wires in America than Rest of the World.

It's all swings and roundabouts, but the 220V system works best, because of brown outs/cables and actual power. I remember living in NYC and every time I used the vacuum cleaner you could see the lights dimming slightly, or when the compressor of a fridge turned on.

To quote https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...do-countries-prefer-either-of-the-frequencies

The voltage and frequency of AC electricity varies from country to country throughout the world. Most use 230V and 50Hz. About 20% of the countries use 110V and/or 60Hz to power their homes. 240V and 60Hz are the most efficient values, but only a few countries use that combination.