broooooooce Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 So I'm not going to use a 850w, BUT, I'm going to get something bigger than a 550w. I've been looking for a simple wattage calculator so that I could figure it out on my own. I've been configuring computers on sites like Ibuypower.com and cyberpowerpc.com to see what they recommend for a build of my size. I'm probably going to get a 700 or 750 PSU. That was my original thought until I read the same "higher wattage = higher efficiency at low loads" rumor, thus the 850w PSU. I'd like to dial in exactly what I need for my final build before I buy anything. NewEggs overly simplistic yet reasonably accurate and up to date wattage calculator is one that you might use--it's a bit mundane and lacks some features, but many of the more detailed PSU calculators don't yet have the latest hardware available on their drop down menus. Also, be wary of PSU calculators on the websites of companies that also make power supplies. I think this one shoots a bit high as well (cause Newegg is certainly in the business of selling PSUs, and higher is safer than too low--less returns, etc etc etc). But, it's a good ballpark figure. I just put in my system stats and it recommended 538 Watts. I know thats a bit high from adding up the wattages by hand--and also because there is no conceivable situation in which every component in my box will be using 100% power anyway--but they have to do that because PSU peak-efficiencies vary and they have to tailor this to the "lowest common denominator"--that said, it's still a handy tool. The truth is that I could even drop a GTX 580 in here and everything could run at 100% and I'd be fine, although just barely. Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
airman Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 This is patently false. The opposite is true. Power supplies are most efficient from ~45-65% load (this varies with each PSU, but this is the typical range). They are slightly less efficient at higher loads, and MUCH less efficient at lower loads (because the excess power is wasted as heat). So you would be paying more for a hotter case and a higher power bill. This is the third time this month I've had to clarify this--I wish I could find the person who started the rumor that higher wattage = higher efficiency at low loads. I would castrate them. For that PSU, you would have to be using about 400 to 500 watts CONSTANTLY to take advantage of it's optimum efficiency. The max that that system could draw if every drive was spinning, if the CPU was under it's max load and the GPU was at it's very max load, and if every LED and FAN wwere glowing it's brightest and spinning it's fastest doesn't even hit 500 watts. Under normal operating conditions, you probably aren't using but around 200 watts. I'm also going to call while true, your statement isn't completely accurate and is exaggerated. Check out any of the numerous power supply reviews, such as one of ours here: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sea_x_760w/5.htm as well as the 80+ Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS . While peak efficiency may occur at half of the rated power of a power supply, it is certainly not horribly inefficient at low power draws! In the Seasonic review, that 760W power supply achieves an efficiency of over 85% only pulling about 120W on a 120V power source, and even higher on a 220V power source. 120W for a high-end system at idle is certainly not out of the ordinary especially if he goes CrossFire. And below that, say for example he only pulls 80W at idle...if that is only at 50% efficiency, he's pulling 160W from the outlet. Even at a horrifyingly expensive 15 cents per kWh, that's only $8.50 worth of wasted power left on 24/7...a month (assuming the computer is idle and only required 80W of power). Not very significant if you ask me, but I'm only a mechanical engineer...so what do I know Long story short, if you can afford an extra $8.50 a month on your power bill, something like a 750W will be perfect for your setup - especially since you plan on going Crossfire down the road and maybe even trying to do some higher-level overclocking To answer your original question, definitely the SSD with the 1TB on the side. 64GB is a little small, but for a dedicated OS drive it'd be the right size for that. It will surely FLY! As far as your cooling question goes, all of the of the ones listed by Mercury above are great! I can vouch for the Noctua NH-D14 fitting in the HAF 932 (similar to the HAF-X without the fan on the side panel), along with the Zalman and the Prolimatech. However, I did have to raise one of the fans out a little bit to clear my memory, but you may not need to do that. The Mushkin Ridgebacks have some large heatspreaders! IF you have to raise the fan out a little bit, there might be some clearance issues but the fan might not even be in the same plane as that fan to begin with - I can't tell. I sold a roommate my Super Mega (copper version of megahalems) and it works wonders. He's running his 1090T at 4.2ghz and I don't think it gets above 50 or 52c. However, for the Prolimatech I'm pretty sure you'll need to buy a retention bracket for AMD sockets, that's what he had to do. My favorite is still the D14, it is a great cooler but definitely pricey! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broooooooce Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I don't find fault with anything you've written there, Airman--I just can't stand waste, and 8.50 a month spent unnecessarily is still 8.50 a month spent unnecessarily. And I wouldn't say I've really exagerated anything given that my statement is almost exactly the same as this one sourced from the wiki article that you linked to: Supplies are typically most efficient at between half and three quarters load, much less efficient at low load, and somewhat less efficient at maximum load. I think we're both arguing the same side here, my purpose was simply to illustrate that "higher wattage means higher efficiency at lower loads" is an unequivocally false statement, and one that gets tossed around on this forum quite often. It seems like every new builder seeking advice gets the ol' "Looks good, but I'd bump that 600 up to an 850 if I were you." This doesn't do anyone any favors, it just ends up costing them 8.50 extra per month (to use a crude example, but you get what I'm saying). As an engineer, I'm sure you can appreciate my aspiring to peak efficiency, seeking to eliminate waste, and to do so at a reasonable cost, right? Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) I think we're both arguing the same side here, my purpose was simply to illustrate that "higher wattage means higher efficiency at lower loads" is an unequivocally false statement, True, but based on the Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS) for 80 Plus certification...it doesn't matter at all! If it's 80 Plus certified it's over 80% efficient for such a broad range that it really doesn't make a difference - especially considering that larger supplies often get the higher 80 Plus ratings. If anything it's a good reason to overclock! Save money by OC'ing! As for the original question - I'd go 64 GB SSD + 1 TB drive as long as you can keep your install size down. Edited February 12, 2011 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cchalogamer Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Yeah I'm in the don't get a huge PSU if you don't need it camp here, but i think that horse has been beaten by those with a better background for it than myself, so on to the SSD question, I just bought my first SSD about a week ago and don't regret it, that said it's not really going to help your gaming performance or make EVERYTHING super fast, and they certainly still have draw backs (biggest being the price tag lol). I went with a 120GB though so i can install a few games on the drive, though I must admit while GRID sees a huge drop in load times, BF Bad Company 2 doesn't really seem any faster. I guess I'll mess around with if until I'm happy but I was getting tired of not having one to play with. It is nice with the speedy boot times (though honestly I've only seen booting off it twice ) and more or less instant launch of things like browsers, winamp etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broooooooce Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 True, but based on the Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_PLUS) for 80 Plus certification...it doesn't matter at all! If it's 80 Plus certified it's over 80% efficient for such a broad range that it really doesn't make a difference - especially considering that larger supplies often get the higher 80 Plus ratings. If anything it's a good reason to overclock! Save money by OC'ing! As for the original question - I'd go 64 GB SSD + 1 TB drive as long as you can keep your install size down. It doesn't make a difference, or it makes enough of a difference that you can save money by OCing? You can't have it both ways. But, since you mention it: The difference is quantifiable with math. If you aren't using the extra wattage, why buy it? Just to waste money and power or just because you feel the difference to be negligible does not change the fact that it is wasteful and unnecessary. That is my point. What am I missing here? Why is there this push here for people to buy unnecessary wattage at a higher initial cost that results in lower efficiency (even if it's just the tiniest bit)?! Just because you are alright with it (which I also don't understand) for whatever reason (because the difference is negligible, because $8.50 extra a month on your power bill isn't a big deal to you), I still don't understand why do it to begin with!? Why spend more for something with NO benefit and quantifiable extra costs? Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
airman Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 The $8.50 figure is considering a screamingly high power rate and assuming the computer is left on at idle for 24 hours a day, pulling 80 watts at only 50% efficiency - a horrible overstatement and a worst case scenario that isn't likely. More reasonable figures brings that figure down to below $2 a month with the computer idling 12 hours a day and only "wasting" 50 watts by idling. It IS negligible. I rarely see a power bill within $10 of the previous one anyways, so no one who writes the check to the energy company would notice or care about $2 on a $200 power bill. Also, we're only talking about the slight decrease in efficiency only at low power draws. When the computer is actually being used, the efficiency moves up a bit and it doesn't matter how many watts the power supply is rated for. It could be a 2kW power supply, and it wouldn't make any difference if it was 85% efficient at a 400W load than an 600W power supply that's 85% efficient at 400W. The power draw from the outlet wouldn't change. Again, it's negligible! Lol Let's see, benefits of a slightly larger power supply: -He knows he's going Crossfire. Why starve his hardware from power? -Large power supplies almost always have 80+ certification. -Higher wattage means more amperage. -In many cases, better overclockability Cons: -Having to give up one drink from the vending machine at work per month. -??? I do see what you're saying, but the reason isn't strong enough nor matters enough to justify saving something like $30 up front and get only a 600W power supply that MAY not meet his demands later on - to save a negligible amount in power bill money every month. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) The $8.50 figure is considering a screamingly high power rate and assuming the computer is left on at idle for 24 hours a day, pulling 80 watts at only 50% efficiency - a horrible overstatement and a worst case scenario that isn't likely. More reasonable figures brings that figure down to below $2 a month with the computer idling 12 hours a day and only "wasting" 50 watts by idling. It IS negligible. I rarely see a power bill within $10 of the previous one anyways, so no one who writes the check to the energy company would notice or care about $2 on a $200 power bill. Also, we're only talking about the slight decrease in efficiency only at low power draws. When the computer is actually being used, the efficiency moves up a bit and it doesn't matter how many watts the power supply is rated for. It could be a 2kW power supply, and it wouldn't make any difference if it was 85% efficient at a 400W load than an 600W power supply that's 85% efficient at 400W. The power draw from the outlet wouldn't change. Again, it's negligible! Lol Let's see, benefits of a slightly larger power supply: -He knows he's going Crossfire. Why starve his hardware from power? -Large power supplies almost always have 80+ certification. -Higher wattage means more amperage. -In many cases, better overclockability Cons: -Having to give up one drink from the vending machine at work per month. -??? I do see what you're saying, but the reason isn't strong enough nor matters enough to justify saving something like $30 up front and get only a 600W power supply that MAY not meet his demands later on - to save a negligible amount in power bill money every month. Exactly this. I'd rather have an overpowered PSU that was *slightly* less efficient at idle (although better 80 Plus ratings usually translate to better low-load efficiency as well) than one that was strained when my parts were running full load with no real room to upgrade. I mean, with any reasonable load we're talking the difference of maybe a buck or two at most. Sure, it's wasteful, but so is leaving a light on for an extra hour a day, so is hitting the gas too hard in your car, so is *insert anything slightly wasteful here*. Edited February 12, 2011 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
broooooooce Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 I'm not saying he should get a 600, he said he was going to crossfire. I said if he were not planning on that, that he should go for the 600. Maybe you misunderstood me--my gripe is in general. . . and generally speaking, many builds around here feature wattage FAR FAR in excess of their needs and it IS wasteful. As I've stated numerous times already, my point is that people around here are under the impression that the bigger the PSU, the more efficient it is at lower loads which isn't true--this results in people with set ups comparable to mine dropping 850 and 1000 watt power supplies in their boxes and for what? And Waco, justifying waste by remarking about other ways in which people are wasteful isn't really valid . . . Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) As I've stated numerous times already, my point is that people around here are under the impression that the bigger the PSU, the more efficient it is at lower loads which isn't true I don't disagree with this...although in general, quality power supplies tend to be higher powered, and higher powered PSUs do tend to have higher efficiency ratings for a broader range of loads. And Waco, justifying waste by remarking about other ways in which people are wasteful isn't really valid . . . The magnitude of waste with any halfway decent PSU is almost negligible; that's all I'm saying. I'd rather have the peace of mind having a larger PSU than worry that my next upgrade will push my PSU harder than I'd like. I can't remember a time when I kicked myself for buying too much PSU but I can definitely recall many times with my builds and my friends' builds that I wish we'd gone larger to start. Losing hardware to a blown up PSU sucks. It's pretty much the only part you can buy for your computer that can carry through to new builds and it's one of the best things to spend extra money on because of that. Edited February 12, 2011 by Waco Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercuryDoun Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 The $8.50 figure is considering a screamingly high power rate and assuming the computer is left on at idle for 24 hours a day, pulling 80 watts at only 50% efficiency - a horrible overstatement and a worst case scenario that isn't likely. More reasonable figures brings that figure down to below $2 a month with the computer idling 12 hours a day and only "wasting" 50 watts by idling. It IS negligible. I rarely see a power bill within $10 of the previous one anyways, so no one who writes the check to the energy company would notice or care about $2 on a $200 power bill. Also, we're only talking about the slight decrease in efficiency only at low power draws. When the computer is actually being used, the efficiency moves up a bit and it doesn't matter how many watts the power supply is rated for. It could be a 2kW power supply, and it wouldn't make any difference if it was 85% efficient at a 400W load than an 600W power supply that's 85% efficient at 400W. The power draw from the outlet wouldn't change. Again, it's negligible! Lol Let's see, benefits of a slightly larger power supply: -He knows he's going Crossfire. Why starve his hardware from power? -Large power supplies almost always have 80+ certification. -Higher wattage means more amperage. -In many cases, better overclockability Cons: -Having to give up one drink from the vending machine at work per month. -??? I do see what you're saying, but the reason isn't strong enough nor matters enough to justify saving something like $30 up front and get only a 600W power supply that MAY not meet his demands later on - to save a negligible amount in power bill money every month. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandre Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) The above discussion on PSU wattage recommendations is interesting and I would like to add my own views on the matter but, unfortunately, it is slightly distracting us from helping the OP. If we wish to continue this matter it would probably be better to start a separate topic within the Members Lounge section of the forums. There we will be able to discuss any issues without hindrance. Just a suggestion Edited February 12, 2011 by Alexandre Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now