Thursday, March 3rd 2022
Intel ATX 3.0 16-pin Power Connector for PCIe Gen5 is Smart, Has Four Power-Delivery Variants
Intel is reforming the ATX specification in a big way with ATX 3.0, and power supplies shipping with new 16-pin power connectors for the next generation PCI-Express Gen 5 graphics cards. The 16-pin 12VHPWR (12-Volt High Power). The need for a new connector standard is arising from the growing power demand from graphics cards, as contemporary high-end GPUs crossing the 375 W barrier (two 8-pin PCIe inputs), and some of today's high-end cards even shipping with typical board power values of 450 W at stock frequencies. Custom-design cards based on these GPUs create cable-spaghetti in your case, as they come with three or more 8-pin connectors. To solve these problems and more, Intel innovated the 12VHPWR.
The 12VHPWR connector has 12 electrical pins and 4 side-band pins, for a total of 16 pins. The side-band pins enable low-fi communication between the power-supply and the graphics card, and two of these pins, labeled "SENSE0" and "SENSE1," let the graphics card know what kind of connector is plugged in, so it can accordingly adjust its power-management. There are four variants of the 16-pin connector based on the electrical capability offered by the PSU. These include 600 W, 450 W, 300 W, and 150 W. The arrangement of the two SENSE pins is how the graphics card tells the four apart.The 12VHPWR connector delivers power in two system states—Initial Permitted Power, and Maximum Sustain Power. The former defines a power-delivery limit when a system is powered up and awaiting boot (up to the stage of the graphics driver to get loaded). The latter is the limit allowed once the driver takes over (software configuration). The table above shows the various power configurations. Will this cause chaos? We don't think so. Any graphics card with a 16-pin connector will take in any connector, and if the connector doesn't meet its requirements, the GPU will default to the lowest power spec, and adjust its frequencies accordingly (performance will be affected). The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Founders Edition is (or was supposed to be) the first graphics card with a 16-pin (12+4 pin) connector, including the side-band stub, even though the GPU doesn't support PCIe Gen 5.
Sources:
momomo_us, Wccftech, VideoCardz
The 12VHPWR connector has 12 electrical pins and 4 side-band pins, for a total of 16 pins. The side-band pins enable low-fi communication between the power-supply and the graphics card, and two of these pins, labeled "SENSE0" and "SENSE1," let the graphics card know what kind of connector is plugged in, so it can accordingly adjust its power-management. There are four variants of the 16-pin connector based on the electrical capability offered by the PSU. These include 600 W, 450 W, 300 W, and 150 W. The arrangement of the two SENSE pins is how the graphics card tells the four apart.The 12VHPWR connector delivers power in two system states—Initial Permitted Power, and Maximum Sustain Power. The former defines a power-delivery limit when a system is powered up and awaiting boot (up to the stage of the graphics driver to get loaded). The latter is the limit allowed once the driver takes over (software configuration). The table above shows the various power configurations. Will this cause chaos? We don't think so. Any graphics card with a 16-pin connector will take in any connector, and if the connector doesn't meet its requirements, the GPU will default to the lowest power spec, and adjust its frequencies accordingly (performance will be affected). The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Founders Edition is (or was supposed to be) the first graphics card with a 16-pin (12+4 pin) connector, including the side-band stub, even though the GPU doesn't support PCIe Gen 5.
56 Comments on Intel ATX 3.0 16-pin Power Connector for PCIe Gen5 is Smart, Has Four Power-Delivery Variants
It compromises GPU capacity, so on 3.0 a 750w power supply can only handle 300w for GPU instead of more like it can do now.
Also UPS capacity now might be an issue as well with the 200% burst requirement.
here you go, a jumpered 6/8 pin you've never seen:
on a cheap budget abomination of a power supply you assumed i don't know of. it was not uncommon for it to be on a "budget" models sooo the cost is in reality lower, another assumption out the window.
it would be miraculous to be building PCs since college in '94 and not find crap/junk parts. same thing walking into an autoparts or hardware store to find parts for cars, washer/dryers, furnace, hot water tank . . i can buy name brand parts that are on the manufactures' suggested list or go with a no name cheap part and try my luck. stating that there are crappy parts/cables/whatever everywhere (practically since the beginning of time) isn't any excuse as you resentfully put it; it's a statement of fact.
imaginatively find flaws and ranting about the the new cabling on a forum's news section isn't going to change that. going into forum's power supplies sub section and discussing which cables are good and which to avoid (yeah ignoring the bad actors!) is by far much more productive. just like how i found out how bad of a choice i made with the CM PSU - i went to a credible source and found the information to make a better choice.
since you're posting a lot baseless assumptions i'l let you continue making an ass of yourself but i refuse to further make an ass of myself. in the meantime, if you really want to find out and become better informed than i highly suggest you reply to @TheLostSwede 's post to you.
bub bye.
Also, that is really fascinating - I'm thankfully lucky enough to never have seen a PSU like that. Again: I've never said anything even remotely amounting to you not having experience with budget/low quality PC parts, I've only commented on the implications of your lines of reasoning and argumentation in this thread. Have I ever claimed that me discussing this here is changing anything? How about just ... discussing a potential problem? Is that bad?
But again, you're missing my point: seeking out advice on forums full of well-informed people is not something you can expect even a modest amount of people to do - forum culture is rather and not necessarily the most welcoming, not everyone gets it, and not everyone has the time, energy, and patience to sift through a forum to find answers, or even the base knowledge to understand the answers they get. The implication of this line of reasoning, while obviously never formulated this strongly in your arguments, is that people unable to do this work and gain this knowledge for themselves deserve what's coming to them in terms of poor product quality and safety. (To be clear: you're effectively arguing that people should educate themselves, which begs the question of what happens to those who don't, and on whose shoulders the responsibility for those outcomes fall. Such an individualizing line of reasoning - each is responsible for their own actions, and needs to educate themselves - necessarily leads to those unable to do so also being responsible for any issues.) And IMO, that is exactly the kind of issues that standards are meant to eliminate to the degree possible - they should be aiming for idiot proofing, not "moderately knowledgeable-proofing".
As for the rest of the assumptions I'm apparently making here, I sadly have no idea what you're referring to. I think you might be mistaking my extending of your lines of argument to what I see as their logical conclusions (in order to demonstrate their flaws) as assuming you agree with these conclusions - and to be clear, I don't. People hold opinions that align with things they disagree with all the time - I definitely do as well. But IMO, that's what discussions are good for - highlighting one's own blind spots and the implications of beliefs that one might otherwise not have thought of. I'm well aware of skipping over parts - the entire point was tying together two disparate-seeming parts of your argumentation: claims to experience on the one hand, and a lissez-faire attitude towards safety standards on the other. Those were present, and I put them together to highlight the contrast between the two. Such a move obviously requires speculation as it is literally impossible for me to know what lies between unless you tell me, but itshould be equally obvious that it is a rhetorical device and not actually meant as any attempt at a factually accurate description of your overall attitudes, but simply a comparison of two conflicting parts of those. But that is precisely my point: by saying that the way to avoid bad actors is to not buy their products, rather than the most obvious solution in this context - to develop standards to make it more difficult to be a bad actor in the first place - you are saying something about design practices. You are expressing an attitude towards individualization of responsibility, as well as attribution of responsibility towards users rather than designers. I disagree with a lot of this, hence my arguments above. I wouldn't disagree with that, though the important part IMO is that they actually follow the parts of the standard that pertain to safe operations. One could of course argue that a >300W AIC is inherently less safe than a < 300W one, but that's quite a different question, and a rather arbitrary line at that. But discussing a discussion becomes necessary once it's clear that the parties involved aren't actually communicating. Which is the case here. As for this being FUD - if you see it as such, you're reading way too much into this. I'm not saying this is a massive problem - I've only been continuing my argumentation in the face of denial of it being a problem at all. I don't foresee this causing issues with serious PSU manufacturers or other large-scale implementations. My point was highly specific and limited in scope. If that's FUD to you, well, that's on you, not me. Question: How many people, globally, are even occasionally active on forums pertaining to the things they interact significantly with each day? Are you active on ... dishwasher forums? Public transportation/car forums? Clothing forums? Housing and building maintenance forums?
This is my point: the "people need to educate themselves and take responsibility for their actions" argument is fundamentally utopian and practically impossible. This makes it unreasonable. Nobody on earth has the time and resources to educate themselves meaningfully on everything they interact with, even their main hobbies and practices. This is impossible. People need to be extremely selective about these things. Educating yourself about the things you interact with is of course highly important, but doing so about everything is impossible. This means that in practice, this line of argumentation becomes a cop-out in service of denying responsibility for designers and standards makers. Their job is literally to ensure the safe operation of these things. Not for well-read enthusiasts, but for as many people as possible. Please see above. This is wildly utopian quasi-libertarian ideological nonsense that has zero applicability in real life. This is a standard that is literally impossible for anyone to meet. (Though the wealthy have the advantage of being able to pay others to apply their expertise and education in their stead. Meaning that this line of argumentation is not only utopian, but also inherently classist and discriminatory, as it designates those able to "sensibly" pay others for their expertise as more "responsible", and as such better.) You already did. ... like what a standards body does? Sorry, I have very little interest in educating myself on the specifics of torts in the US legal system, seeing as it is a deeply, deeply messed up system dominated by frivolous lawsuits and the overall adoption of an absurd litigious attitude, and hardly a standard by which anything ought to be measured. You apparently forgot to finish this sentence, but I get what you're going for. Again, see above: asking that everyone doing something relatively simple (like seeing lots of cool-looking PCs with braided cabling, wanting that for their own, and going searching for cheap cable extensions) educate themselves even "moderately" on something quite technical like PSU wiring safety, to the degree that they are able to identify shady-looking cabling and too-good-to-be-true deals? That is completely unreasonable. What is not unreasonable is to ask a standards body literally comprised on companies consisting of hundreds if not thousands of experts on this field to design a standard that takes as many precautions as possible towards idiot-proofing their standard. And in this case, they instead designed a standard that incentivizes shortcuts.
you're an F'n piece of work man.
now go bugger off..