Gigabyte's New Odin GT 800W Power Supply
by Christoph Katzer on July 24, 2007 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
Testing Overview
We changed our testing procedures slightly in our last article. We have added a low input voltage test which is in this case again 100VAC. This power supply is rated from 100 to 240VAC thus we couldn't perform a 90VAC test. We are testing the power supplies with programmable loads from Chroma. If you would like to know more about our testing methodology, equipment, and environment, please read our Power Supply Test Methodology overview.
Note: The rails of the power supply can be regulated through the included software. All of our results are made with standard settings without any regulation.
Before we start with the results we would like to clarify the tables from each rail. Some readers were asking after the last review why we wrote 100% load and we had less than the stated 750W. This is easy to explain. In our static tests we are testing a load from 100% and not an output of 100%. We calculate the load for each rail according to the respective combined power and stated power for each line, because the stated power for each line is not the actual power it can deliver together with the other rails in use.
In our review today we have four 12V rails with two of them rated at 18A the other two at 25A. The combined power for these four rails is 62A which is around 15A per rail. The results shown in the tables (in the second column) indicate how much amperage we are using on the rail. The third column shows the resulting wattage, which is the product of the amperage and voltage of that particular line (P = IV). As the voltages drop during testing, the final result is always lower than the actual stated rating of the power supply.
For example: 19.95A is the load for the 3.30V rail at 100%. If the power supply could deliver 19.95A at 3.30V we would have a result of 63.525W and not 60.06W like we will see on the next page. By the time we add this added with the 5V and four 12V rails we get 100% theoretical load at only 770W instead of 800W. This does not mean that the PSU cannot deliver 800W however, and thus we have added more tests towards the end of the article to determine each rail's maximum capacity.
We changed our testing procedures slightly in our last article. We have added a low input voltage test which is in this case again 100VAC. This power supply is rated from 100 to 240VAC thus we couldn't perform a 90VAC test. We are testing the power supplies with programmable loads from Chroma. If you would like to know more about our testing methodology, equipment, and environment, please read our Power Supply Test Methodology overview.
Note: The rails of the power supply can be regulated through the included software. All of our results are made with standard settings without any regulation.
Before we start with the results we would like to clarify the tables from each rail. Some readers were asking after the last review why we wrote 100% load and we had less than the stated 750W. This is easy to explain. In our static tests we are testing a load from 100% and not an output of 100%. We calculate the load for each rail according to the respective combined power and stated power for each line, because the stated power for each line is not the actual power it can deliver together with the other rails in use.
In our review today we have four 12V rails with two of them rated at 18A the other two at 25A. The combined power for these four rails is 62A which is around 15A per rail. The results shown in the tables (in the second column) indicate how much amperage we are using on the rail. The third column shows the resulting wattage, which is the product of the amperage and voltage of that particular line (P = IV). As the voltages drop during testing, the final result is always lower than the actual stated rating of the power supply.
For example: 19.95A is the load for the 3.30V rail at 100%. If the power supply could deliver 19.95A at 3.30V we would have a result of 63.525W and not 60.06W like we will see on the next page. By the time we add this added with the 5V and four 12V rails we get 100% theoretical load at only 770W instead of 800W. This does not mean that the PSU cannot deliver 800W however, and thus we have added more tests towards the end of the article to determine each rail's maximum capacity.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
23 Comments
View All Comments
Gothik - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link
hi everyone,a noob here. I was wondering whether to get this PSU for my upcoming rig. I'm gonna run a quad core q6600, 4 sticks of ddr2 RAM, and a gf 8800GT (maybe SLI later). I was wondering, if the PSU is rated at 800w like the one being reviewed, does that mean that it is powered constantly at 800w or will the mechanism in the PSU determine the actual power consumed? Also, the author mentioned that there are a few PSUs that peform equally to this unit but cost less, can I know which ones are they?
Thanx.
QueBert - Monday, July 30, 2007 - link
about to buy a new PSU, want something future proof and modular. This looks about perfect for my needs. I find it odd that my Ultra X, which is years old and was the first Modular PSU. Still has better looking cables than any other modular unit on the market. Gigabyte seemed to step up the modular appearance a bit though. Kudos to them for that.wrong - Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - link
I can think of an excellent reason to honeycomb the side wall and put a sheet of plastic in to block airflow.Weight.
Not necessarily what they had in mind, of course. But LAN boxes should be light, and this could be one way to cut weight without reducing heatsink size and compromising cooling performance or noise.
I wonder if it makes a difference to EM noise.
Bozo Galora - Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - link
I really really like the way you do these PSU reviews. Much more informative indeed than anything else on the web. I am a bit dismayed over the way AT reviewers sugarcoat conclusions on obviously poor performing equipment - tho I understand why you have to do it.Now heres a review I would like to see......
There is a just out new Coolermaster MODULAR 1000W PSU with humungous rails
http://www.rbmods.com/Bilder/Articles/Coolermaster...">http://www.rbmods.com/Bilder/Articles/Coolermaster...
Heres the first review.......
http://www.rbmods.com/Articles/Coolermaster/Rs-a00...">http://www.rbmods.com/Articles/Coolermaster/Rs-a00...
This is the new esba model, NOT the current emba
Note in the review are the usual stupid useless graphs showing "rock solid" unchanging rails. Since I am about to buy, I would love to see how your review compares. And this is modular so it might help in your investigation of this modality.
Keep on truckin'
erikpurne - Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - link
Totally agree. It would be much easier to see where your system typically falls on the efficiency graph.
Also, on the 'Power Loss' graphs, the upper line should be input, and the lower one output. Oh, and watts are power, not energy!
Myrandex - Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - link
You should pictures of the LEDs, but there should have been a lights out LEDs enabled pic :)Good article though, and the build quality looked fantastic
the goat - Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - link
I assume that the software is only for windows? Of course the power supply will operate without the software but it would be nice to use the product to it's full potential with any operating system. In future articles please tell us if there is software for linux or not.Vidmar - Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - link
While I think the Efficiency charts in load percentage are nice, if you included Efficiency charts in watts it would be more informative from a buying perspective.The reason? I know the sum of system load is 375watts normally. The way it is now, if power supply XYZ has a max load of 650watts, I have to calculate where my ~375watts falls into that load chart (~57% load). But if the next power supply has 1000 watts max, then I have to yet again calculate what load percentage that may be for *that* power supply. If the Efficiency charts were in watts, instead of load, no calculations would be necessary. If I could look at your charts and see that XYZ power supply provided those watts the most efficiently, that would be the power supply I would get.
Maybe you could just provide a second X axis on the chart that included the watts.
Thanks!
MadBoris - Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - link
I really like the software component possibilities, looks like it needs some tweaking though like with 18a max per rail.As to memory and CPU usage, well that is .Net for you, that footprint problem is here to stay. Thx to MS.
I'm a little curious to the max 25a per rail.
Nvidia states 8800 GTX should have 30a http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nvidia.cfg/php/...">Link
Maybe someone can clarify the real draw of an 8800 GTX and is 25a completely sufficient.
What about next gen?
Good review, looking forward to more like it.
As cool as this PSU is, $200+ is a bit too much for a PSU.
Christoph Katzer - Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - link
Depends on how much your graphics card needs to work. When your display just has 1024pxl in width you can run the 8800 in a decent system with a 300w psu. If you are using a 30" screen with 2560pxl in width it is a total different story. But don't worry, we are working on an article to make things like that very clear.