TR Forums

So I read this article over on Dailytech. 90% power supplies. But instead of being labeled 90%, they're being called 80 plus platinum. Who came up with that lunacy? Did they hire Nvidia's marketers or something?

Although this is extremely good for the industry. If they made one of these around a 500 watt level, I'd love to snag one.

Sargent Duck wrote:

So I read this article over on Dailytech. 90% power supplies. But instead of being labeled 90%, they're being called 80 plus platinum. Who came up with that lunacy? Did they hire Nvidia's marketers or something?

If they had hired nVidia's marketers, they would be called 110% efficient and they would have AT form factors.

I'd be very interested in what people first thought this thread was about from the title.
My first inclination was it was about 90s fashion and 80s fashion.. but then my brain switched on "oh yeah, Tech site" and I thought it referred to the accepted operating temperatures of current GPUs.

PSU efficiency is very interesting though. Its a good step.. definite lunacy for the buzzword choice though.
They should borrow something from the petrol industry and call it premium or 90/10 octane

Got to pay for the R&D somehow, and that somehow is to release them in high-power high-margin PSUs first. Anyway I'm glad to see this but a while ago I was thinking of replacing an 80+ 'regular' PSU with something 5% more efficient. It turns out that unless you're running a hundreds of watts 24/7, while the percent improvement is nice the absolute power change is not very much. Electricity would have to be a *lot* more expensive for it to make financial sense.

200 watts inside the case ÷ 80% efficiency = 250 watts used from the wall.
200 watts inside the case ÷ 90% efficiency = 222 watts used from the wall.
250 - 222 = 28 watts saved.

28 watts x 24 hours/day x 365¼ days/year = 245½ kilowatt-hours per year.
245½ kwhr/yr x 15¢/kwhr = $36.82 saved per year.

Most of us would be satisfied with a 3-year payback on our investments, so if the PSU costs less than $110 and you fold 24/7, it's probably a good buy.

balzi wrote:

I'd be very interested in what people first thought this thread was about from the title.

I assumed it would be a goof thread linking to a story about some wacky 90-year-old.

MadManOriginal wrote:

Got to pay for the R&D somehow, and that somehow is to release them in high-power high-margin PSUs first.

Yeah, but all the attention by the mfrs seems to be aimed at near-kilowatt supplies. While it's true those are the ones that benefit the most from increased efficiency and certainly that's the market that won't be dissuaded from paying a little extra for the latest features, it's a little annoying when they're way overkill for most modern systems (which, ridiculous multi-GPU setups aside, are getting less power-hungry compared to a few years ago).

Anyway I'm glad to see this but a while ago I was thinking of replacing an 80+ 'regular' PSU with something 5% more efficient. It turns out that unless you're running a hundreds of watts 24/7, while the percent improvement is nice the absolute power change is not very much. Electricity would have to be a *lot* more expensive for it to make financial sense.

That's definitely true if you're thinking about replacing an existing supply that is otherwise adequate for your needs. If you're planning a new build, though, and you do plan to run it many hours a day and expect to keep the PSU (and perhaps case) for years while you swap in other parts, it does make sense.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

200 watts inside the case ÷ 80% efficiency = 250 watts used from the wall.
200 watts inside the case ÷ 90% efficiency = 222 watts used from the wall.
250 - 222 = 28 watts saved.

28 watts x 24 hours/day x 365¼ days/year = 245½ kilowatt-hours per year.
245½ kwhr/yr x 15¢/kwhr = $36.82 saved per year.

Most of us would be satisfied with a 3-year payback on our investments, so if the PSU costs less than $110 and you fold 24/7, it's probably a good buy.

Perhaps you missed this line It turns out that unless you're running a hundreds of watts 24/7?

My [email protected] + 9600GT + 1 HD pulls ~115W idle, which is where it sits more often than not. ~205W with P95, ~180W with Furmark (regular gaming is around the same) and ~260W with P95+Furmark. Those are from the wall numbers. The biggest factor is time turned on though. 8 hours a day cuts any power use number to 1/3 versus 24 hours, that may be a more 'normal' (probably high really) per day use and changes the payback to over 9 years. Also I was talking *for me* and versus a PSU that already gets 80-85% in the power range the computer runs, also my electricity costs closer to $0.10 which further decreases the difference. So my post still stands especially because of the bolded line above which you obviously ignored in order to make a post which I agree with as quoted above.

Higher efficiency power supplies are generally quieter and run cooler.

UberGerbil wrote:

balzi wrote:

I'd be very interested in what people first thought this thread was about from the title.

I assumed it would be a goof thread linking to a story about some wacky 90-year-old.

It got you guys to click!

I leave my computer running as I like the idea of saving power and find that you have to clean the inside a heck of a lot more when you've got air running through it 24/7. I also feel the need to re-earn my investment within the first year, anything after that just seems to long when talking about a small purchase like a PSU. With the higher efficiency supplies also usually being their more expensive products typically comes higher quality and sometimes longer/better warranties.

"and I thought it referred to the accepted operating temperatures of current GPUs."

Ahahah, that was my second though too . At first I was thinking of that commercial with the guy wearing all black in the desert talking about age... i knew instantly it wasnt age related.