Enermax Revolution87+ 850 W

Enermax Revolution87+ 850 W

(1 User comment) »

Value and Conclusion


  • The Enermax Revolution87+ 850W retails for $192
  • High efficiency
  • Fairly quiet and cool operation
  • Plenty of connectors (including six PCIe ones)
  • Good ripple suppression
  • Only Japanese caps used
  • Top notch finish
  • Stiff price
  • Loose voltage regulation at 3.3V
  • Cables with restricted flexibility
8.7The Enermax Revolution87+ 850W is without doubt a very good PSU with lots of aces up its sleeve. For starters, it is very efficient, even for Gold standards and not only at the typical load range (20-100% of max rated capacity) but also at loads lower than 100W.
Moreover it features a cool and silent operation, thanks to its reduced energy dissipation and its twister bearing fan. Voltage regulation at +12V is decent and the same applies to ripple suppression in general. In addition, the unit is equipped with a large number of cables/connectors and on top of that it can take an extra PCIe cable reaching a total of eight PCIe connectors. You rarely see an 850W PSU with so many PCIe connectors and even most of the 1kW units don't support that many.
After mentioning the unit's strong points let's check its downsides now, which basically are restricted to two. First of all its price is very high and seriously affects the price/performance ratio and secondly, voltage regulation at 3.3V needs improvement since it almost hits the limit. As a side note, a slight improvement in ripple suppression would be very welcome.

To conclude this review, if you can afford it then this PSU surely won't let you down. Enermax high-end PSUs are proved to be reliable and good performers and the Revolution87+ 850W is solid proof of this. It is based on a proven platform and thanks to its huge amount of connectors it will easily power a triple-GPU setup. Of course a lower price would give a significant boost to the price/performance ratio, so we hope that Enermax will seriously take this into account.
Page:
Next Page »(1 User comment)