Debunking Power Supply Myths
by Christoph Katzer on September 22, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
Connectors and the 12V Rail Issue
Okay, we've chosen a few power supplies for our three test systems, but so far we've only looked at performance. There are still two additional issues that can affect your choice of power supply. We have previously shown that it is possible to run even high-end systems with a much lower rated power supply than you might expect. However, look at the offerings from the various manufacturers and you will frequently find that there are insufficient connectors for some configurations. The second issue involves the 12V rail(s), which is primarily responsible for powering the processor and graphics card(s).
Let's start with the first issue: having enough connectors. It is certainly possible to run a GeForce 8800 Ultra using only a 400W power supply; however, no one makes a 400W PSU with the necessary two PEG connectors. In fact, some power supplies in this range might not even have a single PEG connection. You could always use a Molex to PEG adapter(s), but you're probably better off selecting a different power supply.
Our entry-level system used the ATI Radeon HD 3650, which is a nice choice because it doesn't require any PEG connector. In the future users might want to upgrade graphics cards, however. The good news is that all of the entry-level PSUs be selected include a single 6-pin PEG connector, so they should be sufficient for powering up to a midrange (8800 GT/HD 3850) graphics card. If all you need is an average computer system, these power supplies will work fine.
The second issue is the amount of power the unit needs to provide in order to port graphics cards that use a single 6-pin jack. We could have included more cards, but for this example we've selected ATI's HD 3850/70 and NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GTS and 9600 GT. We've created a table showing how much power these cards consume and where this power comes from under full load.
| GPU Power Requirements by Connector | |||||
| Vendor and Chip | Through 6-pin Jack |
Through PCI-E Slot |
Total Power | ||
| ATI Radeon HD 3850 | 4.4A | 52.8W | 2.4A | 28.8W | 82W |
| ATI Radeon HD 3870 | 5.1A | 61.2W | 2.6A | 31.2W | 92W |
|
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
|
7.2A | 86.4W | 4.8A | 57.6W | 144W |
| NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT | 4.9A | 58.8W | 4.0A | 48.0W | 107W |
We need to check if the power supplies come with either one or two 12V rails. PSUs with two 12V rails usually have one rail connected to the 6-pin PEG connector and the other running the 24-pin ATX connector. The 24-pin ATX connector has two yellow cables that supply 12V, and both of these cables supply the PCI-E slots with power. The increasing power requirements of modern GPUs was the driving force behind the switch from 20-pin ATX connectors to 24-pin connectors. Some power supply manufacturers include different color markings on the 12V cables to differentiate rails, so if you have such a power supply you should make sure you connect components to a rail that has sufficient remaining juice.
It's important to have one 12V rail supply the CPU with power and the second rail for the PCI-E slots and 6-pin connector. Unfortunately, many companies make a tremendous mistake when it comes to power distribution. We have seen several power supplies that use one 12V rail for the 6-pin PEG connector and then a second 12V rail for the CPU and 24-pin ATX connector. That means if you have a graphics card that doesn't include a 6-pin jack, both the CPU and GPU will use the same 12V rail for power. In this case, the second 12V rail goes completely unused, and users risk drawing too much current on the remaining 12V rail. In addition, how much power a GPU draws from the 6-pin connector and how much it takes from the PEG slot varies.
Checking the labels of the entry-level units, we see that our selected power supplies should all have no difficulty running any of the above GPUs. Power supplies like the Corsair VX450W that has a single 12V rail have the advantage of being able to fully utilize the rated 33A.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
98 Comments
View All Comments
kuraegomon - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
Aargh. The most important argument for ensuring that your PS has plenty of headroom is ... lifespan!The most knowledgeable PS people out there will all tell you the same thing: running even a quality PS at consistently more than 80% or so of its rated output is all but guaranteed to reduce its operational lifespan. It's also a catch-22 because the longer a PS is run at high load, the less the maximum load it can support becomes. This isn't a terribly quick process, but quite a sure one. Track down any number of JonnyGuru's comments/reviews out there for more info.
Do all the math stated in this article, and figure out what your idle and load draws approximate too, then make sure you've got 30% headroom on top of your load requirement. This is BEFORE taking into account any expansion plans. Also, try to remember that 850 PCP&C supply described here STILL isn't being used the way a power user uses their system. It's spending more time at or near peak load, but it's also quite likely spending a fair bit of time on the shelf.
7Enigma - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
What is your point? In the article the PSU's for each category are well under 80% utilization. If you look back at the charts, in the rated range for each system:-low end is utilized <50% of rated wattage
-mid-range is utilized <75% of rated wattage
-high-end is utilized <80% except for the Neopower Blue (which honestly looks pretty crappy both from a efficiency and sound standpoint)
That is across the board. In each category the higher-rated parts are obviously utilized less than those percentages.
Even the comments below each chart bares this out. For the low end, for example, they state that a 250w PSU would be perfect, while even a 200w would suffice. With a total system draw of 140w, the 250w would be near 50% utilization (56% if you want to be picky), and the 200w would still be <75% utilization.
I don't see fault in this article from that standpoint.
vlado08 - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
The problem is that even if you calculate the expected power draw of your system you have to trust the label on the power supply and to be sure that if it says 500w then it is so. Well then you just end up to trust the trade mark or some reviews for the model you are going to by.Or you trust somebody who is going to assemble your new computer for you.
7Enigma - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
Thank you very much for this article. As someone building a system by the new year I appreciate it greatly!One interesting thing is that there are times where the higher wattage supplies actually make more sense due to efficiency (and probably more connectors/warranty/etc.).
The Enermax Pro82+ 625w is definitely the best mid-range you have listed IMO for a stock system (ie non-OC'd), but for someone looking to OC their system I think the Zalman850 from the high-end section is probably the better buy (both efficiency and soundwise). There is a crossover point very close to idle power levels (if you take into account another 25-50w for an OC'd system), and so anything above idle will have better efficiency and at load quieter levels.
But I haven't checked the price difference, which I'm assuming is quite large. A 1-2% efficiency difference between the Enermax and Zalman is probably not worth the increase in price from both a ROI (from power savings and increased case temp from inefficiency).
Thanks again for the great review!
vlado08 - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
In the article you didn't mention how did you measure the power draw of different components for example the CPU or the draw from PCI express? And haw did you test the efficiency of the different power supplies?Don Tonino - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
I found the remarks concerning the efficiency charts a bit misleading... why give the range of efficiency of the high end system, for example, as between 85% and 89%, when the first number refers to the efficiency with 90VAC? the numbers given out are not consistent, as the systems at 230VAC show in reality the following efficiencies approx:low end - 74 to 80 %
midrange - 82 to 88 %
high end - 87.5 to 89.5%
Based on the numbers above, the PSU is actually quite well suited to the high system as the efficiency changes by a meager 2% between idle and load. It would be even better with some extra load, so to place the idle/load range between 450 and 700 W.
As far as the point to make is to show how efficiency changes with the load, it would have been as meaningful to give data just for the 230VAC, as it was already stated that efficiency with 120VAC or 90VAC would be even lower.
Insomniac - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
The range isn't for 90VAC to 240VAC, it's to cover the idle load to full load range of the sample system.Don Tonino - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
Check the chart. For every system the lower efficiency, the one given for the sistem at idle, has a value that at that particular power load (respectively given as 90W, 168W and 310W) lies on the red line, the one representing efficiency of the PSU when running at 90VAC.This is most evident if you take the high end system, which is stated will make the PSU run at an efficiency between 85% and 89%; those values, if you move on the blu line (PSU running at 230VAC) means a power load between 200W and 650W).
Giving the idle efficiency with the PSU running at 90VAC and the load efficiency with the PSU running at 230VAC gives a much higher change in efficiency than real. The only real meaning for it would be to say: "with such a system and such a PSU you will have an efficiency between A% and B%, based on the current the PSU is running on"... and I seriously doubt that anyone at home have an electrical system that changes VAC on the run.
Insomniac - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
I see what you are saying now. I misunderstood what you said before. It seems a table would be better to show the efficiency range for each, or the values for one curve only (the article seems to say it was supposed to only be 230 VAC).JarredWalton - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
Sorry for the error - not sure how we missed that, but yes the efficiency with the high-end system and UCP 900W is higher than stated initially. Must have been confused with the other systems, but I'll correct the text now.