Official GIGABYTE Forum
Off-Topic => General discussions => Topic started by: soarwitheagles on April 23, 2011, 06:54:15 pm
-
Hi all!
I recently purchased a number of XFX PSU units. Jonnyguru gave exceptional reviews on the 850 watt version:
http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story5&reid=165
I installed this new XFX 850 watt in my new Intel i5-2500k/Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD3-B3. I am very happy with it.
BUT, I just read an article where a builder is saying his SeaSonic X Series X650 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Modular Active PFC Power Supply saves him 15% power costs compared to other PSU's.
Here is my question: How much energy savings between 80Plus Gold Certified vs. 80Plus Silver Certified? Would I really see a 15% difference in power consumption between these two units?
Any expert "Double E" guru's that can help me make an educated decision on this please?
I would appreciate any and all accurate advice.
Thanks,
Soar
-
I just found a Certification Table but I am still not sure exactly how much energy is saved from let's say a Bronze vs. a Platinium.
Is it as simple as seeing a mere 2% savings when comparing a Silver Certified PSU to a Gold Certified PSU?
If this is truly the case, then I see very little merit or incentive to upgrade from a Silver to a Gold certified PSU.
Can anyone here help me out on this? Am I seeing this clearly?
Soar
-
Hi Soar,
Yes that is about what I wopuld have expected. The power supplies today are very eco friendly anyway and there is not going to be a massive difference between the top and bottom rated ones. Bear in mind too that most people use approximately 50% - 60% of the output which is usually the most economical level.
I certainly wouldn't swap the Silver for a Gold version. It just wouldn't make sense.
-
Hi Soar,
Yes that is about what I wopuld have expected. The power supplies today are very eco friendly anyway and there is not going to be a massive difference between the top and bottom rated ones. Bear in mind too that most people use approximately 50% - 60% of the output which is usually the most economical level.
I certainly wouldn't swap the Silver for a Gold version. It just wouldn't make sense.
"Most people use approximately 50% - 60% of the output which is usually the most economical level" You must be talking max load. Seems people my self included oversize PSU's like a SOB. Take the rig in my sig. Running OCCT PSU test cranked to the max my system draws about 465 watts from the wall. At 90% efficiency that would make the PSU output about 420 watts. So worst case my PSU is loaded 55%. Games I play, Crysis(1,WH,2), Dirt 2, Stalker etc. never come close to using 420 watts. Cruising the net, email etc. my system draws about 135 watts at the wall. Guessing 85% efficiency the PSU is putting out about 115 watts. So about 15% PSU load. So what I'm trying to get at is. People that care about efficiency should not use a PSU that is over sized. Your never going to see the efficiency the PSU is capable of if the idle load is below 20% as most PC's spend most of their time at or near idle.
soarwitheagles, I did some testing when I switch PSU's back a few months ago and these were the results.
OCZ 700GXSSLI PSU claimed to be 80% efficent @ 115V (Typical load)
PC off 4 watts
PC on idling on desktop 132 watts
Running OCCT PSU test with default settings 445-455 watts
Corsair AX750 PSU 80 Plus Gold certified, claimed to be 90% plus efficent at 50% load
PC off 2 watts
PC on idling on desktop 123 watts
Running OCCT PSU test with default settings 395-405 watts
Wattage measured using a Kill A Watt meter.
I would say you would never see a savings going from a silver to gold PSU of the same size. If you are running a oversized PSU now switching to a smaller PSU would make way more difference.
Bill
-
Hi Bill,
Yes I would agree in principle with what you said and I was talking about max load so you were right there. Personally I like to have a bit of headroom so I am not concerned about my PSU having the power to run anything I chuck in there. ;)
-
Hi Soar,
Yes that is about what I wopuld have expected. The power supplies today are very eco friendly anyway and there is not going to be a massive difference between the top and bottom rated ones. Bear in mind too that most people use approximately 50% - 60% of the output which is usually the most economical level.
I certainly wouldn't swap the Silver for a Gold version. It just wouldn't make sense.
"Most people use approximately 50% - 60% of the output which is usually the most economical level" You must be talking max load. Seems people my self included oversize PSU's like a SOB. Take the rig in my sig. Running OCCT PSU test cranked to the max my system draws about 465 watts from the wall. At 90% efficiency that would make the PSU output about 420 watts. So worst case my PSU is loaded 55%. Games I play, Crysis(1,WH,2), Dirt 2, Stalker etc. never come close to using 420 watts. Cruising the net, email etc. my system draws about 135 watts at the wall. Guessing 85% efficiency the PSU is putting out about 115 watts. So about 15% PSU load. So what I'm trying to get at is. People that care about efficiency should not use a PSU that is over sized. Your never going to see the efficiency the PSU is capable of if the idle load is below 20% as most PC's spend most of their time at or near idle.
soarwitheagles, I did some testing when I switch PSU's back a few months ago and these were the results.
OCZ 700GXSSLI PSU claimed to be 80% efficent @ 115V (Typical load)
PC off 4 watts
PC on idling on desktop 132 watts
Running OCCT PSU test with default settings 445-455 watts
Corsair AX750 PSU 80 Plus Gold certified, claimed to be 90% plus efficent at 50% load
PC off 2 watts
PC on idling on desktop 123 watts
Running OCCT PSU test with default settings 395-405 watts
Wattage measured using a Kill A Watt meter.
I would say you would never see a savings going from a silver to gold PSU of the same size. If you are running a oversized PSU now switching to a smaller PSU would make way more difference.
Bill
Bill,
Your benchmarks as well as some of your statements are eye openers for me! Thanks for posting here.
After reading your statements, I think I have been very ignorant or misinformed, or both!
I always assumed that no matter how big or small my PSU is, it would only expend the amount of power the system pulls from it!
I thought my Intel 2500k/Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD3-B3 rig would pull the same amount of watts/amps regardless of the wattage rating of my PSU...
In all reality, I only a need 500-600 watt PSU to run my rig. I purchased the XFX 850 80Plus Silver Certified PSU thinking I would save more costs simply because the efficiency rating is higher than some of the bronze rated 500 watt PSU's.
Bill, am I correct in hearing you say that the wattage rating is also a determining factor in how much wattage my system draws?
How much would I save if I "downgraded" from the XFX 850 Silver to the Seasonic 650 Gold?
Please elaborate if you will.
Thanks,
Soar
-
Hi Soar,
Yes that is about what I wopuld have expected. The power supplies today are very eco friendly anyway and there is not going to be a massive difference between the top and bottom rated ones. Bear in mind too that most people use approximately 50% - 60% of the output which is usually the most economical level.
I certainly wouldn't swap the Silver for a Gold version. It just wouldn't make sense.
"Most people use approximately 50% - 60% of the output which is usually the most economical level" You must be talking max load. Seems people my self included oversize PSU's like a SOB. Take the rig in my sig. Running OCCT PSU test cranked to the max my system draws about 465 watts from the wall. At 90% efficiency that would make the PSU output about 420 watts. So worst case my PSU is loaded 55%. Games I play, Crysis(1,WH,2), Dirt 2, Stalker etc. never come close to using 420 watts. Cruising the net, email etc. my system draws about 135 watts at the wall. Guessing 85% efficiency the PSU is putting out about 115 watts. So about 15% PSU load. So what I'm trying to get at is. People that care about efficiency should not use a PSU that is over sized. Your never going to see the efficiency the PSU is capable of if the idle load is below 20% as most PC's spend most of their time at or near idle.
soarwitheagles, I did some testing when I switch PSU's back a few months ago and these were the results.
OCZ 700GXSSLI PSU claimed to be 80% efficent @ 115V (Typical load)
PC off 4 watts
PC on idling on desktop 132 watts
Running OCCT PSU test with default settings 445-455 watts
Corsair AX750 PSU 80 Plus Gold certified, claimed to be 90% plus efficent at 50% load
PC off 2 watts
PC on idling on desktop 123 watts
Running OCCT PSU test with default settings 395-405 watts
Wattage measured using a Kill A Watt meter.
I would say you would never see a savings going from a silver to gold PSU of the same size. If you are running a oversized PSU now switching to a smaller PSU would make way more difference.
Bill
Bill,
Your benchmarks as well as some of your statements are eye openers for me! Thanks for posting here.
After reading your statements, I think I have been very ignorant or misinformed, or both!
I always assumed that no matter how big or small my PSU is, it would only expend the amount of power the system pulls from it!
I thought my Intel 2500k/Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD3-B3 rig would pull the same amount of watts/amps regardless of the wattage rating of my PSU...
In all reality, I only a need 500-600 watt PSU to run my rig. I purchased the XFX 850 80Plus Silver Certified PSU thinking I would save more costs simply because the efficiency rating is higher than some of the bronze rated 500 watt PSU's.
Bill, am I correct in hearing you say that the wattage rating is also a determining factor in how much wattage my system draws?
How much would I save if I "downgraded" from the XFX 850 Silver to the Seasonic 650 Gold?
Please elaborate if you will.
Thanks,
Soar
To really know for sure you would need to measure the wattage draw from the wall when your system is idle. We also need to know how efficient your existing PSU is at low load so we can figure its true output at idle. The trouble is I do not think anyone tests PSU's at such low load. I looked at XFX and found nothing. I also searched the net and found nothing. I think the best we can do is a wild guess. Not knowing your exact system config I would guess your PC uses less power at idle than mine does because of the 2500k you are using. So lets say your PC draws 115 watts from the wall at idle. Since your PSU is 100 watts bigger than mine and your sytem draws less. Lets say your 850 is only 75% efficient at this load. True wattage output would be 86 watts. So your PSU is barely over 10% loaded at idle. Now take a 550 watt gold PSU and lets see what happens. Even using a 550 we will be below 20% load at idle but much closer than before. Lets say the 550 is 87% efficient when your PC is idle. There is a 12% gain going to a 550 watt PSU. 12% of 86 is about 10.3 so you would save about 10 watts if I figure correctly. I would say this would be best case savings. It could be less. IMO not worth the expense of changing PSU's as it would never pay for itself unless the PC was on 24/7 and you have very high rates on electricity.
Bill
-
Thanks again Bill for sharing your thoughts and insights. I do have two of the Kill-O-Watt meters. I only used them one time and then left them on the shelf. I could plug my rig into the Kill-O-Watt meter and check for wattage usage in idle and while surfing the net [I no longer play games]. Would this help me understand how much juice my rig is slurping as well as help me do a comparative study on various PSU's and rigs?
If yes, must I wait an hour or more or can I find the correct readings immediately?
Please let me know.
Thank you,
Soar
PS Also, a question for DM and Absic: Which of my two rigs are slurping the most energy, the AMD hex core or the new Intel 2500k?
-
Thanks again Bill for sharing your thoughts and insights. I do have two of the Kill-O-Watt meters. I only used them one time and then left them on the shelf. I could plug my rig into the Kill-O-Watt meter and check for wattage usage in idle and while surfing the net [I no longer play games]. Would this help me understand how much juice my rig is slurping as well as help me do a comparative study on various PSU's and rigs?
If yes, must I wait an hour or more or can I find the correct readings immediately?
Please let me know.
Thank you,
Soar
PS Also, a question for DM and Absic: Which of my two rigs are slurping the most energy, the AMD hex core or the new Intel 2500k?
Sure a Kill-O-Watt meter will give you the needed wattage draw from the wall almost immediately. We will still be missing accurate info in how efficient PSU's are below 20% load. I now for a fact the efficiency will drop off the farther you go below 20% but that varies from PSU model to model.
Your Kill-O-Watt meter will easily tell you which system is the most efficient. I would guess the AMD rig draws more power.
-
Thanks again Bill!
Ok, just measured my AMD rig and it is drawing 123 watts at idle, 150 watts when I surf the internet, and 200 watts when I watch a movie.
I am not sure what software to use to test full load. I am not comfortable downloading OCCT PSU test software because it comes out of Russia.
Are there any other software programs I might use to test at full load?
I never realized the number of watts can fluctuate so widely as I do different tasks on the rig. Very interesting!
Do you know what is really funny? I have two brand new Galaxy GTX 480 1.5 MB Super Overclocked GPU's and each one idles at 222 watts, and suck 425 watts at load. When I read that I decided to not use them! I'd have to work overtime just to pay my electrical bill!
It would be nice to discover how many watts my GTX 460 is gobbling up!
Well, I am done with measuring the AMD rig for now. I'll measure the Intel rig later.
Thanks again!
Soar
-
Hi Soar,
Regarding your question about the AMD v Intel power usage as you ahve already mentioned yourself it mostly depends on other pasrts of the system like the GPUs that you have installed more so than the CPU/motherboard. On a basic rig though I would say the Intel would be slightly ahead of the AMD at rest or just minimal use. I will be interested in your findings though. ;)
-
Hi Soar,
Regarding your question about the AMD v Intel power usage as you ahve already mentioned yourself it mostly depends on other pasrts of the system like the GPUs that you have installed more so than the CPU/motherboard. On a basic rig though I would say the Intel would be slightly ahead of the AMD at rest or just minimal use. I will be interested in your findings though. ;)
Hi Dm!
Ok, are you saying that the GPU will use more watts than the CPU?
Soar
-
Yes certainly. Usually much more. Especially if you have them in SLI or crossfire configuration.
-
Yes certainly. Usually much more. Especially if you have them in SLI or crossfire configuration.
Wow! Just goes to show you how ignorant I am! I had no clue that was the case.
Thanks for the understanding!
In my mind, I always thought the CPU was the biggest energy guzzler!
Soar
-
Thanks again Bill!
Ok, just measured my AMD rig and it is drawing 123 watts at idle, 150 watts when I surf the internet, and 200 watts when I watch a movie.
I am not sure what software to use to test full load. I am not comfortable downloading OCCT PSU test software because it comes out of Russia.
Are there any other software programs I might use to test at full load?
I never realized the number of watts can fluctuate so widely as I do different tasks on the rig. Very interesting!
Do you know what is really funny? I have two brand new Galaxy GTX 480 1.5 MB Super Overclocked GPU's and each one idles at 222 watts, and suck 425 watts at load. When I read that I decided to not use them! I'd have to work overtime just to pay my electrical bill!
It would be nice to discover how many watts my GTX 460 is gobbling up!
Well, I am done with measuring the AMD rig for now. I'll measure the Intel rig later.
Thanks again!
Soar
OCCT is the only all in one program I know of as it can load the CPU and GPU at the same time. I have used it for years without problems. You could use IntelBurnTest and MSI Afterburners Kombustor or Furmark at the same time. Keep in mind no matter what you use you must keep an eye on your temps. I would only run the test long enough to get the results.
Bill
-
Bill,
Ok, thanks!
Can you kindly direct me to a safe site to download a safe copy of OCCT?
Thanks,
Soar
-
Hi Soar,
Try this link and don't worry it is a trustworthy program even if mit is Russian!
http://downloads.guru3d.com/OCCT-(OverClock-Checking-Tool)-3.0.0-download-1880.html
-
Hi Soar,
Try this link and don't worry it is a trustworthy program even if mit is Russian!
http://downloads.guru3d.com/OCCT-(OverClock-Checking-Tool)-3.0.0-download-1880.html
3.0.1 is the latest version. I have always downloaded directly from the developers site.
http://www.ocbase.com/perestroika_en/index.php?Download
-
Thanks guys!
I'll try it later tonight!
Soar
-
Soar did you ever test your Intel system? Test out OCCT?
Bill
-
Soar did you ever test your Intel system? Test out OCCT?
Bill
Bill,
I was totally committed to move full speed ahead with this test and then the unexpected happened:
Three issues delayed my test!
1. Had a circuit blow out this weekend and worked over 8 hours replacing it [new line, fuse, wall sockets, etc.].
2. Also, been reading a whole lot about Usama's demise...it is a special day today here in the USA. Sweet justice finally.
3. Spring time here in California and doing over-time in the garden [the wife and I try to get in everything early so we can experience the largest harvest later].
I hope to test later this week if all goes well and post some results!
Thanks for asking!
Soar
-
I thought my Intel 2500k/Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD3-B3 rig would pull the same amount of watts/amps regardless of the wattage rating of my PSU...
You were right in your thinking. The parts connecting to your PSU will always pull the same ammount of wattage, regardless of the efficiency of the PSU itself. However, you're measuring system draw at the socket and that's where PSU ratings come into play. Basically, there's always a certain amount of power lost inside of the PSU ( that's why they get warm as all that power becomes heat ).
Your AMD rig is certainly going to consume more power as Sandy Bridge is really good on power consumption.
Do you know what is really funny? I have two brand new Galaxy GTX 480 1.5 MB Super Overclocked GPU's and each one idles at 222 watts, and suck 425 watts at load. When I read that I decided to not use them! I'd have to work overtime just to pay my electrical bill!
Feel free to send these my way, I wouldn't mind the bill ;D. Seriously, though, the GTX 480 was a mighty disappointment when it was released. Probably the worst card of the GTX 400 series.
Yes certainly. Usually much more. Especially if you have them in SLI or crossfire configuration.
Not quite 100% true. Depends on the CPU/GPU configuration and eventual overclocking. With AMD Phenom CPUs, especially when overclocked, only the more powerful GPUs will exceed their power draw under 100% load. With SB, all except the low performance cards will be more power hungry.
In case of your AMD rig, Soar, your GPU and CPU should consume about similar amounts of power under load.
-
BTW'er,
Wow! Thanks for all the great info and the good education!
Since you tell me the Sandy Bridge will consume less power than the AMD, I will definitely make the Intel my main rig, keeping the AMD as my back up rig.
Um, I wish I could send you a 480 card, but I already sold both. You mentioned that they were the worst of the 400 series! Wow! I thought the 480's left my 450 and 460's in the dust!
I was tempted to keep at least one of the 480's simply so I could show off my rig, but in all honesty, I have no need whatsoever for a 480 and they do appear to suck up much more wattage than the 460's.
I haven't had time to compare the Intel 2500k's wattage with the AMD 1055 yet. I hope to do it soon. I am wondering just how much of a difference I will see between the two.
Last, I hear the new Intel 22 nm 3D Ivy Bridge Processors will be even more energy efficient with the new 3D architecture. Can't wait until they come out!
Thanks again BTW for all the good info.
You have helped me very much!
Soar
-
You mentioned that they were the worst of the 400 series! Wow! I thought the 480's left my 450 and 460's in the dust!
It is the most powerful card of the GTX 400s generation but the least reasonable to use. It's basically a flawed, behemoth core that runs hot and hungry when all parts of it are enabled. To put it into perspective, the GTX 480 is really a GTX 295 with 1 processor instead of 2 and DX 11 support. It's hardly an improvement which was extremely disappointing. Heck, the HD 5970 required less power than the GTX 480 ( and that's even at idle :o ).
It wasn't worth buying new but if you can get a good deal getting an used one, they're alright ;D. I can't really say anything about power hungry monsters with my current card.
I haven't had time to compare the Intel 2500k's wattage with the AMD 1055 yet. I hope to do it soon. I am wondering just how much of a difference I will see between the two.
You should see a difference of about 20-30W at idle and somewhere around 50-60W at load. At least that's what I figure based on reviews.
Last, I hear the new Intel 22 nm 3D Ivy Bridge Processors will be even more energy efficient with the new 3D architecture. Can't wait until they come out!
I'll hold my horses till I see it. I've seen a crazy slide recently about the supposed gains of this architecture change. Seems way overoptimistic to me and I sure hope it won't be that great for AMD's sake.
-
BTW'er,
Thanks again for helping me understand the 480. Well, I suppose I am glad I only purchased two of them. The price seemed good [$239 per unit] and I was able to sell them on Ebay for a handy profit. For some reason, people in England were paying much more for these units and I was tempted to sell them there instead of the US. I think there may have been trouble with import tax though..
After reading your descripton of the card it seems as if it was one big mistake and perhaps never should have even been released to the public!
I sure am glad I did not put it in my rig.
I am in the process of transferring all data from my Intel i-750/Gigabyte P55A-UD3 to the Intel 2500K rig. Soon, it will be up and running and I am totally excited about that! I will sell the Intel i-750 on Ebay or Craigslist [I already snapped the pics]. The 2500K rig will be my new main rig, but maybe not for long! If these new Ivy bridge processors are as good as they say, I will sell the 2500K and upgrade to the Ivy Bridge!
Anyone have any idea of the target date for the release of the Ivy Bridge?
It's me,
Soar
-
Anyone have any idea of the target date for the release of the Ivy Bridge?
Most likely spring or early summer 2012. Depends on how good Bulldozer will be ;). Remember that Intel must release the hexa core SB first.
-
Anyone have any idea of the target date for the release of the Ivy Bridge?
Most likely spring or early summer 2012. Depends on how good Bulldozer will be ;). Remember that Intel must release the hexa core SB first.
That is a very long time to wait! I suppose I will just have to be happy and content with my 2500K!
Soar
-
Hi soar,
You really do like giving yourself a hard time don't you ? Most people are content with trying to keep up to date with the latest releases but you are even trying to get the kit that hasn't got a release date yet ;)