Hello,

I need to buy a power supply for the PC I am building. Thermaltake, OCZ,
Corsair, and Rosewill, have very good ratings and Newegg. Which one should
I get?

Thanks,
T.I.

On 17-Jun-2008, "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote:

Also look at PC Power & Cooling Power Supplies.
http://www.pcpower.com/index.html

Talal Itani wrote:

www.JonnyGuru.com can tell you. This is one of the very few websites
that does legitimate testing of PSUs and loads them down to their full
rated power rather than just 200-300W by using only a computer as the
load. Never trust positive reviews that don't include watt or amp
measurements.

Thermaltakes vary in quality because they're made by more than one
company. However I believe that their GamePower and ToughPower models
are made by Fortron-Source, a very good company.

Rosewill isn't that good but also not completely awful.

OCZ and Corsair are very good because they're made by top
manufacturers, Fortron-Source and Seasonic, respectively, except for
some of OCZ's PC Power & Cooling models, which are Seasonic or Win-
tact. Seasonic also makes some Antec models, including the Neos,
Quattros, Trios, and Earthwatts.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:32:28 GMT, "Talal Itani"
<titani@verizon.net> wrote:

Get the one with enough actual capacity for the system you
didn't mention, nor did you mention the specific models of
the above you're considering.

In other words, there is no magic brand to buy that really
matters, unless talking about the higher end where they just
more conservatively rate their products so it would be the
equivalent of buying a similar price alternative in another
name brand, not a similar wattage rating.

Thermaltake is a parts relabler, and Rosewill is a house
brand. With both you are looking at budget designs and will
need to factor for this not just in capacity but longevity,
towards the end of buying a little higher wattage rated unit
in order to combat these factors... and yet, that puts their
prices closer to what you need in the others so basically
the answer is avoid low-end generics and buy based on what
the normal market price would be for the capacity your
system needs, THEN look for sale prices on those units you
deem acceptible. At any given moment and any given budget
the best PSU for someone not wanting to pay a premium would
be the one that's on sale at that moment.

Talal Itani wrote:

--
Claude Hopper

? ? ¥

"Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote...
For a good basic machine, Antec Earthwatts 500.

Look for EnergyStar and 80+ logos.

Claude Hopper (11) 5. ? <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

the Chiefmax PSUs are. Avoid!

I have had good experience of Corsair and Antec PSUs.
Seasonic and Enermax are also excellent (so I hear) and Coolermaster seem to
be improving (apparently)

Cheers!

--
Graham
Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk

fwibbler wrote:

--
Claude Hopper

? ? ¥

an $11.99 power supply? I would not even touch it.


"Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?" <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:4858fb55$0$30156$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

Unless you were resurrecting an old P3, etc...

Personally, I like my Corsair PSU... Of course its 750watts, so should
handle just about anything.

--
Fight Usenet Spam!!! - http://improve-usenet.org:80/

Want a great newsgroup reader that will filter out the flood of
newgroup spam?
Try MesNews - http://www.mesnews.net/gb/

If you want your posts to be seen, DON'T USE GOOGLE GROUPS!

Talal Itani wrote:
Oh, the Hummer mentality.


--
Claude Hopper

? ? ¥

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:12:24 -0400, Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?
<boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

.... until the system actually needs more than the true
capacity which on a generic 450W tends to be closer to 250W.
Then there's the issue of longevity vs load and ambient
temp, that the closer to the margins the sooner they die.

Have you ran this specific model with the current hardware
for 10 years? Of course not, it would be impossible since
they didn't exist back then, but until a baseline for
expected lifespan as implemented can be established, it's
more reasonable to look at past designs per capacity and
load to note that typically such pairings don't last the
life of a system and then require more troubleshooting, time
and expense to replace again which negates the initial
savings.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:29:15 GMT, Calab <myspam@csd.ca>
wrote:

In which case one ought to choose a quality 300W instead of
a poor pseudo-450W.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:41:12 -0400, Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?
<boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:


No, just looking at what the majority of the qualified
engineering teams select for their systems when they're
trying to cut costs. OEMs are who I am referring to and
they too won't touch such generics with a 10 foot pole,
instead choosing quality units even if the actual capacity
is no higher than on a so-called 450W generic.

On Jun 18, 5:12*pm, Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?
<boobooililili...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
Meanwhile, others suffered motherboard or hard drive damage when
that same power supply failed. Sure, it worked fine until a missing
function causes damage to other components.

How many failures did you attribute to something else such as heat
or software? Any minimally sufficient power supply can fail
catastrophically and never cause damage to any other computer
component. Never. Just another function ‘forgotten’ to sell for
less.

Another implied 750 watts was sufficient. When selling to the
naive, hype more watts and forget to include other essential functions
that all power supplies are required to contain. How to sell the
defective 750 watt supply to the naive? Include no numeric
specifications. Then other required functions can be 'forgotten' to
increase manufacturer profits while lowering the retail price. Any
power supply even 35 years ago would power a computer even when
incandescent lamps are at less than 40% intensity. When a defective
but 'big watt' supply does not do that, then the naive also recommend
a $100 UPS. $100 to fix a defect in that 750 watt cheapo supply.

Most any computer will work just fine with 350 watts. Why hype 750
watts? Because the naive think (for no apparent reason) that more
watts means better.

Power supplies that provide minimally required functions can also
provide a long list of numeric specs. Supplies that are missing
required functions are selling to people who don't demand and would
not understand those specifications. Another benchmark for
identifying a best supply for the buck. That $11 power supply will
not provide numeric specs for obvious reasons.

Actually, Hummer is bad, and a $11.99 power supply is bad too.

w_tom wrote:
I never had a motherboard failure. Lost a couple harddrives. I doubt the
PS was the cause since new harddrives ran for years.

output. 50% is where I like to be.

I HAVE seen, in my many years as an electronic tech, many expensive
power supplies in the radio field go bonkers. Cost is no guarantee of
quality or longevity.

--
Claude Hopper

? ? ¥

"Gary" <zero@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Es6dndfG45CfEsrVnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
I would second PC Power and Cooling PSUs. I have used them for many years
with no issues. They just work very well.


Ed

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:00:04 -0400, Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?
<boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote:

.... and yet, others do so your experience could be described
as luck.



That's fine, except that it is very easy today to build even
an inexpensive system that uses more than 50% of the real
capacity of a typical generic 450W PSU. If you meant 50% of
the fictional 450W labeled capacity, it is not likely to
survive even 2 years in that scenario.



Of course there is no 100% guarantee, but that doesn't make
buying a quality PSU any less prudent, as they do tend to
last far longer and have tighter safety shutdown thresholds
if/when one does fail.

kony wrote:
How many cheap power supplies have you blown up? How many of your
friends have blown up cheap power supplies? Do you know anybody or heard
of anybody in fact.

--
Claude Hopper

? ? ¥