Sunday, March 18th 2007

Corsair redefines power supply efficiency at CeBIT

Corsair, known for making quite good RAM among other things, is apparently really getting serious about the power supply business. Most power supplies on the market today are anywhere between 50 and 85% efficient, with the vast majority of power supplies being between 75 and 85% efficient under load. Corsair had a brilliant power supply at their CeBIT booth, which had an impressive 90% load efficiency. This allowed it to power an AMD QuadFX system with G80 SLI, 4GB of PC2-8000 DDR2 RAM, and a 150GB hard drive with a 620W power supply (most people at the show expected an 850W-1kW PSU to be required). To be honest, Corsair has actually had this power supply on the market for a while, and probably couldn't wait for CeBIT to make it available. You can get this extremely efficient power supply here (oh look it's on sale).

Source: The Inquirer
Add your own comment

19 Comments on Corsair redefines power supply efficiency at CeBIT

#1
EviLZeD
WOW quad core 8800gtx sli and 4gb ram on 620 watt psu thats crazy
Posted on Reply
#2
WeStSiDePLaYa
too bad that psu has already be independently tested and shown that it has a max efficiency of 83%.

And im not suprised that this psu could run that. It does have 50amps on the 12v rails.

The question is how long could it run that load...
Posted on Reply
#3
Dippyskoodlez
by: WeStSiDePLaYa
too bad that psu has already be independently tested and shown that it has a max efficiency of 83%.

And im not suprised that this psu could run that. It does have 50amps on the 12v rails.
CRAP

my secret is revealed!
Posted on Reply
#4
RickyG512
wait so u mean this is a fake
Posted on Reply
#6
zekrahminator
McLovin
Regardless of how efficient it REALLY is, the point is, it can power that system with relative ease :).
Posted on Reply
#7
RickyG512
its all about the pc power and cooling which i cant find it on any store/retailer/website in england, if i could i would buy one right now
Posted on Reply
#8
WeStSiDePLaYa
by: zekrahminator
Regardless of how efficient it REALLY is, the point is, it can power that system with relative ease :).
Buy, how do you know it did it with ease? I mean they most likely ran it stock, without vmods. Who in their right mind would do that!!?!?!
Posted on Reply
#9
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Looks like someone was reading my posts and took notice of how I wish we had PSUs that were more than 85% efficient. Ill probably wind up getting me one of these as well :)
Posted on Reply
#10
EastCoasthandle
It's probably ideal for those that want modular but I still prefer PC P&C Silencer. I think they changed the name for it now to include a quad or something.
Posted on Reply
#11
NamesDontMatter
I think intel was developing or developed capacitors or somethin that allow PSU's with greater then 90& efficiency(real efficiency)
Posted on Reply
#12
niko084
Either way I have come across many 3rd party examinations and comparisons of Corsair PSU's to other HIGH end psu's... And it is normally the corsair that comes out on top. Especially for being modular, they hold voltage better than some other larger more expensive psus from high end companies.

So maybe its not a 90% efficient psu, its still a darn nice unit, and I would recomend it to anyone looking for a psu in that price range.
Posted on Reply
#13
WeStSiDePLaYa
by: WarEagleAU
Looks like someone was reading my posts and took notice of how I wish we had PSUs that were more than 85% efficient. Ill probably wind up getting me one of these as well :)
Too bad the only testing that shows its efficiency being that high is their OWN testing, lol, and i think more efficient psu's is a no brainer.
Posted on Reply
#14
justdc
Too bad efficiency is only affecting AC to DC conversion, and does not make 620W psu 1KW. If they made it work on 620W psu, then it was working out of specs (and is not 620W psu), or the system actually needed less than 620W.
Posted on Reply
#15
WeStSiDePLaYa
by: justdc
Too bad efficiency is only affecting AC to DC conversion, and does not make 620W psu 1KW. If they made it work on 620W psu, then it was working out of specs (and is not 620W psu), or the system actually needed less than 620W.
That is common knowledge.

The system wouldnt need 620w.
Posted on Reply
#16
Dippyskoodlez
by: WeStSiDePLaYa
That is common knowledge.

The system wouldnt need 620w.
ppsst heres a hint for everyone.


Most systems don't need the PSU you're powering it with.
Posted on Reply
#17
justdc
by: zekrahminator
Corsair had a brilliant power supply at their CeBIT booth, which had an impressive 90% load efficiency. This allowed it to power an AMD QuadFX system with G80 SLI, 4GB of PC2-8000 DDR2 RAM, and a 150GB hard drive with a 620W power supply
This is false, psu efficiency does not change what can it support, only the output wattage. If this psu would be 50% efficient everything would work fine too. I think newsman should correct this.
Posted on Reply
#18
Poisonsnak
by: justdc
If this psu would be 50% efficient everything would work fine too.
I don't agree.

With 620W out at 90% that means 689W in and therefore 69W of heat in the PSU.

620W at 50% means 1240W in and 620W of heat in the PSU. I don't believe you can dissipate that kind of heat inside that kind of area while keeping the PSU below maximum operating temperature.
Posted on Reply
#19
justdc
by: Poisonsnak
I don't agree.

With 620W out at 90% that means 689W in and therefore 69W of heat in the PSU.

620W at 50% means 1240W in and 620W of heat in the PSU. I don't believe you can dissipate that kind of heat inside that kind of area while keeping the PSU below maximum operating temperature.
How does a 2000W psu with 80% efficiency does it then? Remember that maximum efficiency is achieved only in certain conditions i.e. temperature. Still most psus have operating range 0-50 C. It also means they can deal with lower efficiency than "rated".

Efficiency itself is not a requirement to power any kind of system, it's just a bonus on the power bill and some silence. Implying that efficiency is allowing psu to power some components is just false.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment