EPTReliable links for the power consumption would be appreciated
Simple Questions Simple Answers - Page 100
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
jackdaleaper
Philippines1216 Posts
Reliable links for the power consumption would be appreciated | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 11 2012 22:08 jackdaleaper wrote: What's the power consumption of an i5-2500k and a 560 ti at full load? I'm building a system for a friend and I'm looking for a PSU for him. I saw from some threads that a quality 450w psu would be enough but I'm trying to google the power consumption for both and I'm getting different results. Reliable links for the power consumption would be appreciated anandtech.com/bench Bear in mind, you'll be able to see whole system power consumption from the WALL. In other words, if you assume, say, an 85% efficicent PSU used in the tests, the PSU was putting out 85% of the system power draw. And that's for the whole benched system, not just for the single component. But, if you look at their numbers for a 560Ti on it's own that way, and consider that they tested the GPU in a system with OCed bloomfield, drawing WAY more power than a 2500k, no worries. Even heavy synthetic loads won't overtax a GOOD 450w that way. | ||
|
jackdaleaper
Philippines1216 Posts
| ||
|
jackdaleaper
Philippines1216 Posts
On April 11 2012 22:14 JingleHell wrote: anandtech.com/bench Bear in mind, you'll be able to see whole system power consumption from the WALL. In other words, if you assume, say, an 85% efficicent PSU used in the tests, the PSU was putting out 85% of the system power draw. And that's for the whole benched system, not just for the single component. But, if you look at their numbers for a 560Ti on it's own that way, and consider that they tested the GPU in a system with OCed bloomfield, drawing WAY more power than a 2500k, no worries. Even heavy synthetic loads won't overtax a GOOD 450w that way. Thanks I'll check this out | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 11 2012 22:18 jackdaleaper wrote: also, would running a high capacity PSU at a lower wattage (say if I ran a corsair tx650 with a system that only generates 450w max) mean it's running less efficiently (and therefore generating more heat) than if I used a psu with less capacity? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS It will generate more heat at a higher load, generally, since the efficiency will be relatively close, the increased power running through it is going to make it hotter at higher loads. However, a good case will have the PSU isolated to intake through the bottom and exhaust through the back, making it relatively irrelevant. Also, don't worry much about the power savings between 50% load and 100% load, even if you have a unit that's significantly more efficient at 50%, we're still talking a couple watts different, which is going to take forever to significantly affect your power consumption. And the specific values beyond the standards for a PSU's rating will vary by individual sample and unit. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 11 2012 22:30 JingleHell wrote: Also, don't worry much about the power savings between 50% load and 100% load, even if you have a unit that's significantly more efficient at 50%, we're still talking a couple watts different, which is going to take forever to significantly affect your power consumption. Plus if you have any plans to add any components later such as additional hard drives, it's going to save you way more money to go for a higher wattage PSU right off the bat. Also, page 100, yeah! | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 12 2012 00:59 TheToast wrote: Plus if you have any plans to add any components later such as additional hard drives, it's going to save you way more money to go for a higher wattage PSU right off the bat. Also, page 100, yeah! If you plan to add enough HDDs down the road to need a significantly better PSU, you should be considering hot swaps or externals, because that would take one helluva case to cram in that many HDDs. Pull one of your HDDs out and look at it's load figures, Toast. Particularly how many amps and which rail. The only types of components worth seriously considering for PSU (assuming you're buying a good one) are CPU, GPU, liquid coolers, sound cards, and cathodes, for the most part. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 12 2012 01:05 JingleHell wrote: If you plan to add enough HDDs down the road to need a significantly better PSU, you should be considering hot swaps or externals, because that would take one helluva case to cram in that many HDDs. Pull one of your HDDs out and look at it's load figures, Toast. Particularly how many amps and which rail. The only types of components worth seriously considering for PSU (assuming you're buying a good one) are CPU, GPU, liquid coolers, sound cards, and cathodes, for the most part. .... I just wanted an excuse to post on page 100. :D Though if you are doing like a RAID 3 setup with 7200rpm drives you could potentially use somewhere within 30-40 watts. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 12 2012 02:56 TheToast wrote: .... I just wanted an excuse to post on page 100. :D Though if you are doing like a RAID 3 setup with 7200rpm drives you could potentially use somewhere within 30-40 watts. Maybe if you're using a controller card to handle the RAID. Three Caviar blacks is ~ 1.5 amps total on the 12v and 5.5v rails. If you're pushing it that close on a PSU, you already did it wrong. Besides, when that sort of speed is key, you're most likely talking about the sort of application where SSD makes more sense anyways, and SSDs don't even tend to bother with the 12v rail at all. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 12 2012 03:01 JingleHell wrote: Maybe if you're using a controller card to handle the RAID. Three Caviar blacks is ~ 1.5 amps total on the 12v and 5.5v rails. Well that example would be 26.25 watts, so yeah about 30 watts. If I read it correctly the guy was originally asking if it was better to get closer to 100% power usage to be more efficient. My point is that giving yourself some extra room to accomodate future hardware would save you far more money (by averting the purchase of a new PSU) than any improvements to efficiency would in the hypothetical event that usage had any kind of impact on efficiency. Also RAID 3 uses hamming code correction so it's not just improving performance it's also preventing against HDD failure. I'm not advocating using it, but there are people who do. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Anyway, as for the actual question... On April 11 2012 22:18 jackdaleaper wrote: also, would running a high capacity PSU at a lower wattage (say if I ran a corsair tx650 with a system that only generates 450w max) mean it's running less efficiently (and therefore generating more heat) than if I used a psu with less capacity? The model of the power supply is more important of a consideration, as to the efficiency. Computer power supplies are switched-mode power supplies (not linear), so efficiency is around the same at most decently high loads. How much power is drawn cannot be directly related to the maximum output power rating of the power supply (650W for TX650), which is what I think you're implying. If your computer uses 200W running a game (a typical amount), one power supply could be 83% efficient at that load, resulting in 200 / 0.83 = 241W power drawn from the wall. Another power supply could be 91% efficient at that load, resulting in 200 / 0.91 = 220W power drawn from the wall. Some 650W models might be 83% efficient at that load, others could be 91% efficient, 76% efficient, 86% efficient, or whatever; the same could be said for 400W power supplies or any wattage power supplies you can buy. Usually an efficient power supply at 200W is going to be more efficient at 300W and so on, but the exact amounts will of course depend on the exact load conditions. Something that's around 83% efficient at 200W is considered not very efficient for a modern computer power supply. 91% efficient would be considered very efficient. Regardless, the actual difference in total power consumption is really not that great, as you can see. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 12 2012 03:40 Myrmidon wrote: RAID 3 is pretty uncommon, but sure (does it use a Hamming code though? I thought it didn't). Also, RAID is about being able to reconstruct all your data after a hard drive failure or increased performance in some scenarios, not about preventing against the drives from failing in the first place. Sorry, you are correct. RAID 2 is the one that uses Hamming code parity, not RAID 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_2#RAID_2 And what I meant was RAID can prevent against data loss in the event of a HDD failure. I'm a bit fuzzy today, don't judge  | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 12 2012 04:13 TheToast wrote: Sorry, you are correct. RAID 2 is the one that uses Hamming code parity, not RAID 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID_2#RAID_2 And what I meant was RAID can prevent against data loss in the event of a HDD failure. I'm a bit fuzzy today, don't judge Are you a bit burned out? Your mind is jelly? I'm not arguing the value of RAID for some people, I'm just pointing out that the actual power draw of HDDs is relatively insignificant, and people probably shouldn't be trying to shave it THAT close. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 12 2012 04:15 JingleHell wrote: Are you a bit burned out? Your mind is jelly? I'm not arguing the value of RAID for some people, I'm just pointing out that the actual power draw of HDDs is relatively insignificant, and people probably shouldn't be trying to shave it THAT close. Don't even start. -.- And yeah, I personally don't advocate the usage of RAID. Really the only benefit of using it is in the case of HDD failure. And even then I think using off-site backup or backup to an external hard drive is better, as any file corruption, accidental deletion, or virus infection will be instantly replicated to all drives in a RAID configuration. But still, some people use it. I used to work with a guy who would brag about his RAID 6 setup (though this may have been 6 drives in a RAID 0 configuration, I'm not sure he knew the difference). Was a waste of money IMO. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 12 2012 04:25 TheToast wrote: Don't even start. -.- And yeah, I personally don't advocate the usage of RAID. Really the only benefit of using it is in the case of HDD failure. And even then I think using off-site backup or backup to an external hard drive is better, as any file corruption, accidental deletion, or virus infection will be instantly replicated to all drives in a RAID configuration. But still, some people use it. I used to work with a guy who would brag about his RAID 6 setup (though this may have been 6 drives in a RAID 0 configuration, I'm not sure he knew the difference). Was a waste of money IMO. Yeah, there was a time RAID 0 made some sense for enthusiasts wanting good software load times, but now, if you compare the price of say, 3 high cache caviar blacks to a single 256GB SSD, and then compare the performance, you're better off getting the SSD for software and a separate storage drive. And I wholly concur about backing up externally. Much safer. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On April 11 2012 21:55 Alryk wrote: I think nvidia is better because of the graphics switching. Optimus is vastly superior to AMD's alternative. Kepler is also starting to roll out in 28nm for laptops, and AMD hasn't released their 28nm for laptops. Not all 6xx are Kepler though, I think its the 630M, most if not all variations of the 640M, and the 660M Optimus is fucking busted for so many users. Optimus problems make up a significant portion of all laptop user issues on TL. At this point no solution at all is better than an optimus solution. | ||
|
Alryk
United States2718 Posts
 Interesting to know, seeing as I'll be buying a new laptop (finally...) in a few months. (Laptop because the primary reason for it isn't gaming) | ||
Nagisama
Canada4481 Posts
I currently have an external HDD (HDD1) connected via USB cable. It's running low on space, so I plan to buy a second one (HDD2) to replace it. I plan to put HDD1 inside my case and connect that via SATA cable, and connect HDD2 via USB cable in the enclosure that use to house HDD1. Will I lose all data in HDD1 because I changed the connection type? or will it still be the same storage drive it was before? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 12 2012 14:12 Nagisama wrote: Hopefully this is as dumb a question as I think it sounds. I currently have an external HDD (HDD1) connected via USB cable. It's running low on space, so I plan to buy a second one (HDD2) to replace it. I plan to put HDD1 inside my case and connect that via SATA cable, and connect HDD2 via USB cable in the enclosure that use to house HDD1. Will I lose all data in HDD1 because I changed the connection type? or will it still be the same storage drive it was before? It's as dumb of a question as you were hoping it is. The data will be fine unless you do something stupid. Out of curiosity, why not just stick the new HDD inside the case as well? And for the record, the only truly dumb question is the one you didn't ask BEFORE spending money, breaking shit, or losing data. Otherwise, it's just an uninformed question. And while it's possible to be uninformed to the point of silliness, knowing what you don't know well enough to know you don't know and need to ask to know isn't dumb. | ||
|
Nagisama
Canada4481 Posts
On April 12 2012 14:13 JingleHell wrote: It's as dumb of a question as you were hoping it is. The data will be fine unless you do something stupid. Out of curiosity, why not just stick the new HDD inside the case as well? And for the record, the only truly dumb question is the one you didn't ask BEFORE spending money, breaking shit, or losing data. Otherwise, it's just an uninformed question. And while it's possible to be uninformed to the point of silliness, knowing what you don't know well enough to know you don't know and need to ask to know isn't dumb. Awesome, thanks. I got the enclosure awhile ago, so I felt I might as well keep it. I don't actually turn on my external unless I need something from it. So I guess the reason is in hopes it might make the drive last longer by not being in use every time my computer is on. | ||
| ||
