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

[dudewitbow]

[citation][nom]Andy Chow[/nom]I'm accusing both Tom's and the commenter. The Rosewill PSU does not meet ATX specs. It does not qualify as a platinum PSU, It even seems like a very bad PSU, from all the ripples etc. Then Tom's recommends it?I don't believe the commenter claiming a defective unit was impartial either. Probably the same dude who sent in the unit. Claiming Tom's does not have an interest in maintaining a healthy relationship with Newegg ... is ... laughable.[/citation]

in the review it says

At the end of the day, Cooler Master, Enermax, and Kingwin share a first-place finish in today's round-up, and prospective customers should make their decision between those three power supplies based on your own criteria (price, the number of 12 V rails, connector counts, and so on).

so where does it explicitly say that its the recommended unit of the 5 again?

 

[alidan]

this is the psu i would get personally if i need another for my current pc.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104170

its unlikely that i would ever need it, but thought i would post it here.
nice, cheap, and high efficiency not to mention VERY solid build and parts inside that allow for FAR more wattage than this thing can handle.

 

[Conrad925]

this is the psu i would get personally if i need another for my current pc.

Did you happen to read the only review on the product (customer said the unit arrived defective). He still gave it 4 eggs, though. Funny.

 

[Marcus52]

[citation][nom]dirtyferret[/nom]no internal build break down? i don't think jonny guru and hardwaresecrets have anything to worry about in competition.[/citation]

jonnyGURU is a place I go to for hardware tests as well, but I wouldn't put them above Tomshardware by any means. Frankly I think he showed a bit of leniency and bias in this article:

http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story5&reid=32

The article points out build flaws that I would have flat failed the unit for, stamping it with a big "DO NOT BUY" in red letters. Instead, he says it was a good unit that just didn't compete with the better products.

I can easily see someone buying a Zeus because it's on for a sale price - "johnnyGURU said it was good enough, why not save some money?" Why not is because 3 years later those little ugly solder joints are going to come around to bite you in the behind. Mine took out my mainboard and CPU with it (after the 3-year warranty expired of course). Thanks, Silverstone.

I didn't read reviews on the Zeus until after the fact because I trusted Silverstone. It was a bad move, and Silverstone is the reason I now tell people "Don't by just by brand, buy a PSU that you've read good reviews of." But if a site isn't very clear about the problems of a product, a potential user isn't going to be forewarned, and jonnyGURU is being a part of the problem here instead of the solution.

Tomshardware was one of the first sites that starter testing computer PSUs - and telling us how bad they were. This site is in no small part responsible for the increase in quality we have seen in the last decade. Now, I do think Toms has changed a bit, not all for the better, and they are just as capable of being a bit biased or sloppy as anyone else, but jonnyGURU is NOT someone to hold up as a standard for PSU reviews. Yes, the site does a good job, but it doesn't do a great job.

I'm not intentionally picking on jonnyGURU more than Hardwaresecrets or anyone else, it's just that the particular review of the Zeus stuck in my mind so I use that as an example. These are all good sites (If I had to talk "best quality" today I would say Anandtech.com; of course they aren't infallible either), but just like the PSUs themselves, you have to read them with a clear head and open eyes and pay attention to the details. So, like, I know that if jonnyGURU gives a "7.5" for build quality, that means a "don't freakin buy if it's the last PSU on earth" in my book.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

What's with the fixation on efficiency ? To me, voltage stability and ripple are the most significant properties of a PSU. This article provides 50% of that information making it useless to me. The ATX spec allows 5% voltage fluctuation whereby the minimum I consider a requirement for great overclocking potential is 1%. When voltage is flopping around all over the place under highly variable loads, it makes it difficult to maintain stable OC's.

How important is efficiency ? Let's assume 4 hours per day on weekdays and 8 hours per day on weekends ...... or 36 hours a week. Let's use 92% and 90% as the range of efficiency in this article.

36 hours x 4.3 weeks per month x (550 watts/1000 watts per kw) x (92% - 90%) x $0.10 per kwhr = $0.17

How many peps just went "Holy crap, I'm glad I read this article....now I can save 17 cents per month on my electric bill" ?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Are you accusing Tom's of not being objective in this review?

If ya concerned about objectivity, ya might ask why the dollar categories for the Best GFX Cards each month change, shifting the boundaries up or down from month to month ? Ya might ask why the HD charts show speed rankings and yet the top units don't make it into their "Build for $xxxx" articles even though they the same price as the selected units. Is the selection influenced by the other News article that said "XXVendorXX" just sent us 10 Model ....." and they just happened to have 9 more on hand after doing the HD article ?

Is this online payola, is it author bias, is it a Fox News kinda version of "fair and balanced" approach, is it an accuracy issue ? Is it simply a difference of opinion ? Who knows ? It' just makes one stop and ask "For what reason would they keep changing the dollar categories all the time ..... and when ya look, it usually falls out that when the $180-$210 category topped out at $220 last month, there's a $215 "winner" that got squeezed out of the category and is now competing with cards in the $210 - $250 range. Is there an attempt to favor one brand over another ? Or is the opposite true....is there an attempt to keep all players happy ?

The worst instance of this I have ever seen is a PC magazine article from back in the mid 1990's. It probbaly didn't get a lot of attention from the gaming community as it as a database article. In the 12 categories, Microsoft Access garnered 7 excellent ratings and 5 good.....Lotus Approach garnered 11 excellent and 1 good. They TIED for Editor's Choice. I immediately imagined a Newspaper Headline ..... First Superbowl Tie Ever .... "New York Yahoos 33, Washingtom Wackos 15" !

Yes, I still come here and do find the articles useful but I don't believe all of the articles are without "market" or "marketing" influences. For product selection, I'm not going to use a site that compared 5 PSU's or 5 GFX cards for a purchasing decision under one set of criteria and try and compare that with another article 3 months later with another 5. I'll rely on a site that provides a historical database of hardware tested that goes well into the double digits of units so I can make a valid comparison.

Not picking on Toms .... not saying they are better or worse than anyone else. But the astute reader should take everything they read online with a grain....no a handful of salt.....unless you think the girl in this commercial has "got it all down".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I

More on the subject.....

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1024369/-usd-rant-yup-hardware-rant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3110-2005Apr19.html
http://www.fno.org/apr01/payola.html
http://www.dailytech.com/pay+to+play+uncovering+online+payola/article7510.htm

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]Zagen30[/nom]Or, you know, power savings, coupled with not needing 700-800 watts.[/citation]

If you run high end cards you need a PSU with 700+v. Do the math.

 

[JonnyDough]

For all the comments above that talk about big businesses creating networked monopolies:

The memory companies lying in bed together is nothing new either. They just got caught. From governments, to parent/child companies, to price setting, etc. It's happening everywhere. It's inevitable. It's greed and capitalism. There aren't strict enough penalties. Each person involved in scams should have ever dollar and belonging stripped away. They should be barred from ever starting another business. Forget prison. Take everything and give them no hope. Write THOSE stories in the paper. Then people might think twice before lusting after $.

 

[Fokissed]

[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]For all the comments above that talk about big businesses creating networked monopolies:The memory companies lying in bed together is nothing new either. They just got caught. From governments, to parent/child companies, to price setting, etc. It's happening everywhere. It's inevitable. It's greed and capitalism. There aren't strict enough penalties. Each person involved in scams should have ever dollar and belonging stripped away. They should be barred from ever starting another business. Forget prison. Take everything and give them no hope. Write THOSE stories in the paper. Then people might think twice before lusting after $.[/citation]
Well... I think you missed the point of this article entirely.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JackNaylorPE[/nom]If ya concerned about objectivity, ya might ask why the dollar categories for the Best GFX Cards each month change, shifting the boundaries up or down from month to month ? Ya might ask why the HD charts show speed rankings and yet the top units don't make it into their "Build for $xxxx" articles even though they the same price as the selected units. Is the selection influenced by the other News article that said "XXVendorXX" just sent us 10 Model ....." and they just happened to have 9 more on hand after doing the HD article ?Is this online payola, is it author bias, is it a Fox News kinda version of "fair and balanced" approach, is it an accuracy issue ? Is it simply a difference of opinion ? Who knows ? It' just makes one stop and ask "For what reason would they keep changing the dollar categories all the time ..... and when ya look, it usually falls out that when the $180-$210 category topped out at $220 last month, there's a $215 "winner" that got squeezed out of the category and is now competing with cards in the $210 - $250 range. Is there an attempt to favor one brand over another ? Or is the opposite true....is there an attempt to keep all players happy ?The worst instance of this I have ever seen is a PC magazine article from back in the mid 1990's. It probbaly didn't get a lot of attention from the gaming community as it as a database article. In the 12 categories, Microsoft Access garnered 7 excellent ratings and 5 good.....Lotus Approach garnered 11 excellent and 1 good. They TIED for Editor's Choice. I immediately imagined a Newspaper Headline ..... First Superbowl Tie Ever .... "New York Yahoos 33, Washingtom Wackos 15" !Yes, I still come here and do find the articles useful but I don't believe all of the articles are without "market" or "marketing" influences. For product selection, I'm not going to use a site that compared 5 PSU's or 5 GFX cards for a purchasing decision under one set of criteria and try and compare that with another article 3 months later with another 5. I'll rely on a site that provides a historical database of hardware tested that goes well into the double digits of units so I can make a valid comparison.Not picking on Toms .... not saying they are better or worse than anyone else. But the astute reader should take everything they read online with a grain....no a handful of salt.....unless you think the girl in this commercial has "got it all down".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_IMore on the subject.....http://www.theinquirer.net/inquire [...] dware-ranthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-d [...] Apr19.htmlhttp://www.fno.org/apr01/payola.htmlhttp://www.dailytech.com/pay+to+pl [...] le7510.htm[/citation]

We've been told why the dollar amounts change each month. It is because pricing is constantly changing, so Tom's is trying to keep with the times instead of give us less relevant numbers. The Best for the money articles have nothing to do with what cards are sent by what companies because they don't rely on cards being sent by companies, they rely on performance data from many of Tom's tests and reviews.

Both getting editors choice doesn't mean that one isn't better than the other and is thus not comparable to something such as a Superbowl (I may not be much of a sports fan, but wouldn't a tie be settled by overtime or such anyway?). Tom's gave clear and logical reasons for their recommendations.

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]Fokissed[/nom]Well... I think you missed the point of this article entirely.[/citation]

I think you missed the quote I was responding to.

 

[Zagen30]

[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]If you run high end cards you need a PSU with 700+v. Do the math.[/citation]

My point was explicitly that some people don't run multiple high-end cards that require that much power, and they might, for some unfathomable reason, decide they want a more efficient power supply. If you're SLIing a pair of 680s, of course you're going to go with a much higher wattage PSU, but at the same time I don't know why you'd be looking at an article that is only covering PSUs below your needs.

 

[JonnyDough]

I agree, it would be nice to get 400w 80+ Platinum PSUs. With a 6-year warranty from a reputable company I'd probably spend $20 more and get one.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]I agree, it would be nice to get 400w 80+ Platinum PSUs. With a 6-year warranty from a reputable company I'd probably spend $20 more and get one.[/citation]

My only issue with Platinums at that low power point is that they hardly make any difference. It'll save what, three, four watts over a proper Gold? Added reliability and warranty, I can understand those, but being a platinum at that point is like arguing the advantages of a 100MHz speed boost on a CPU that's already well beyond 3GHz. It's little more than a buzzword in such a situation.

 

[JonnyDough]

It's 8 watts, and that's per hour. Over the lifetime (say 5 years) of use that's quite a bit of electricity my friend. At $20 it would be worth it, if for no other reason than to minimize the environmental effect of using more energy.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]It's 8 watts, and that's per hour. Over the lifetime (say 5 years) of use that's quite a bit of electricity my friend. At $20 it would be worth it, if for no other reason than to minimize the environmental effect of using more energy.[/citation]

It's not likely to be anywhere near eight watts and that's not a lot of electricity even over five years. It's not going to impact the environment positively at all (not that there's anything wrong with wanting to help the environment, but the added electricity used to make the more complex PSU components will be greater than any power that you save through it) and its not even going to amount to $10 of electricity saved unless you have huge power bills.

Like I said, it'd pretty much just be a buzzword. A platinum would make a much bigger difference in PSUs around or well over 1000W in systems where the power consumption is high enough that the small efficiency improvement will make a considerable difference.

 

[jemm]

It is nice to learn Cooler Master is also doing great in some products of its PSU line.

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom]Oooooooooooooooh very nice! I love when more sites than just Jonnyguru do quality PSU reviews - I know they're a ton of work so kudos for breaking out that oscilloscope and bringing us the info!I still generally think that the price premium for Platinum over Gold PSUs isn't worth it, though - particularly on lower wattage units like these.[/citation]

Or on any wattage, for that matter.

IMHO, 80 plus silver presents a fair compromise

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]Or on any wattage, for that matter.IMHO, 80 plus silver presents a fair compromise[/citation]

I agree. Bronze seems to be the current standard for quality PSUs, but I would love to see that move into the silver. I'd love even more to have a price competitive "gold standard" but I think we might be a bit of a ways from that still. With more efficient PSUs comes higher manufacturing costs. People still try to skimp on a PSU so they are still able to sell cheap crap ones.

 

[f-14]

nestled into a soft, velvet-like bag. Although it looked nice, we weren't big fans of the overpowering chemical smell the bag was emitting.

i'm guessing some one enjoys the chewy treats of protein that crawl about and breed like rabbits every one else refers to cockroaches. i have a washer machine that cures that problem, works on dirty clothing also.

i always find it refreshing to smell that bug killer in a new refrigerator. i can rest easy knowing it's not a roach motel and source of infestation.

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]It's not likely to be anywhere near eight watts and that's not a lot of electricity even over five years. It's not going to impact the environment positively at all (not that there's anything wrong with wanting to help the environment, but the added electricity used to make the more complex PSU components will be greater than any power that you save through it) and its not even going to amount to $10 of electricity saved unless you have huge power bills.Like I said, it'd pretty much just be a buzzword. A platinum would make a much bigger difference in PSUs around or well over 1000W in systems where the power consumption is high enough that the small efficiency improvement will make a considerable difference.[/citation]

I did the math. It's sound.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]I did the math. It's sound.[/citation]

Telling me that you did it and it is sound when it goes against mine doesn't help if you don't provide the math for us to check and compare any differences in how we did it

Besides, like I said, even eight watts simply doesn't seem worth caring for. You can easily save much more than that through undervolting which would then decrease the difference that the PSU makes anyway.

 

[JonnyDough]

I'm not sure where you got your figures. Maybe you should research it more instead of assuming you know everything like you usually do. It's pretty simple. Take the difference in wattage per hour, multiply that by the cost per hour, and then multiply it by an average use over three years time. You'll more than pay for it.

With as much time as you spend on a PC posting know it all stuff all over the forums all the time, Al Gore would have fits.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]I'm not sure where you got your figures. Maybe you should research it more instead of assuming you know everything like you usually do. It's pretty simple. Take the difference in wattage per hour, multiply that by the cost per hour, and then multiply it by an average use over three years time. You'll more than pay for it.With as much time as you spend on a PC posting know it all stuff all over the forums all the time, Al Gore would have fits.[/citation]

Oh no, I ask for the math that you say is sound in determining the wattage difference so that I can see how it compares to my own to see if I've made a mistake and you have a fit and start mocking me. That certainly doesn't give me any reason to give your math much credit. Still, I suppose that I'll just throw mine in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS
80+G efficiency requirements:
20% load : 87% efficiency
50% load : 90% efficiency
100% load : 87% efficiency

80+P efficiency requirements:
20% load : 90% efficiency
50% load : 92% efficiency
100% load : 89% efficiency

For a 400W PSU, 20% load is around 80W, 50% load is around 200W, and 100% load is around 400W. 100% load is pretty much never going to happen unless you didn't get the right PSU for the job, so there's little point in considering it anyway. We'll focus on those 20% and 50% points because those are reasonable.

These wattage points for a PSU of exact Gold efficiency are ~92W and ~222W. These wattage points for a PSU of exact Platinum efficiency are ~89W and ~217.5W. These numbers are found by dividing the power load from the hardware components by the efficiency where the efficiency is the efficiency percentage as a decimal (IE 20% load is 80W divided by 0.87 for Gold and 80W divided by 0.9 for Platinum).

Those are differences of about 3W and about 5W. Only at 100% load would the difference become about 8W and like I said, if you're running a PSU at around 100% often and for long periods of time, then you're doing something wrong because it greatly increases the degradation of a PSU to run it near 100%. Incidentally, it also increases degradation of a PSU to run it near 0%, but for different reasons.

Furthermore, it's not until you get into differences of a few dozen watts where you're likely to pay off a $20 or so difference in cost between the two over a few years unless you have huge electricity costs compared to the averages for the continental USA.

I'll also take this oppurtunity to mention how different PSUs often vary a little form the exact specs of Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. There are some Golds that are with Platinums in efficiency and vice versa. Heck, I can even name a crappy Gold from RaidMax that only has Bronze efficiency despite its rating, granted it's a dirt cheap model.

 

[JonnyDough]

You forgot to take into consideration that this PSU is made of higher quality materials and comes with a warranty of six years, as I stated it would be worth my trouble to purchase it if it was going to last awhile. That's why you're failing to see the savings. You're only on here to argue and be right all the time, and you're a sad and lonely person if that's how you gain importance. Here's a thought, why don't you try doing something for others for a change instead of surfing the net so much?