psu calculator. sites that have their personal interests vs honest sites

[Bill_Bright]

Those who are experienced can use a psu calculator for reference and not an authority.

It is very handy and time saving if you need to determine needs frequently, as a tech might several times a day.

What is also REALLY nice with the eXtreme calculator is you can save your results then, should you decide on a different graphics card, for example, you can swap out the old card with the new card and recalculate your needs without have to plug everything in again, or re-adding all the values up, and get your new results instantly.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

More information means a better informed decision.

While I'm sure there are dubious calculators out there, using them isn't a terrible idea. Especially for people new to the hobby. Those who are experienced can use a psu calculator for reference and not an authority.

My personal opinion (uh oh ) is agreeing with @Shrek : 50% overhead at full load and spending maybe 15% to 20% more money than needed. It's not a huge jump between $100 and $120, for example, compared to prices these days for GPU's.

Use a calculator for what? 2 simple research items that consume the most power, cpu and gpu.

Then just do the 50% overhead. That will cover the rest of the system and still have overhead.

New people(some, not all, more than few, less than bunches) build with pre-builts a lot it seems.

No worries, I like your opinion.

 

[Arco]

PC Part Picker has helped quite a bit for me. Easy to shove your parts in and get numbers.

Theres a lot of rules of thumb but I'd say around you want 20% above what your maximum wattage is. Also depends on your upgrade path and the such.

If you really want to dig deep go look at Cybernetic testing to see whats best for you.

 

[Frick]

Who said these "certain brains" "just" rely on a calculator? I see no post above that says any one does that.

I really don't want get into a thing with you (because, and I say this as someone who likes you, it's like arguing with a brick wall), but to be fair your first post in this thread said

The right way to determine the proper power supply size you need is to research all the components individually (motherboard, CPU, graphics, type and number of RAM sticks, type and number of drives, cooling devices and each connected USB device), determine their maximum power demand. Add those values up to get the minimum size supply you should get. But that takes a lot of time and work. So I recommend using a good PSU calculator and the best and only one I use and recommend is the eXtreme OuterVision PSU Calculator. This will calculate your minimum needs and recommend a suitable size for those needs. It will also recommend a suitable size UPS!

And again, your recommended calculator recommends a 600W PSU for a GPU that can have 500+W in transients.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I really don't want get into a thing with you (because, and I say this as someone who likes you, it's like arguing with a brick wall), but to be fair your first post in this thread said

Gee whiz. And yet here you are getting into "a thing". So it seems you do want to argue.

Yet no where in my comment that you quoted does it say to "only" or to "just" rely on a calculator - the point of my reply. And my comment also clearly states that is the minimum PSU size to get.

So yeah, I will stand my ground and be a brick wall - and you can keep throwing stones since you seem so inclined.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I really don't want get into a thing with you (because, and I say this as someone who likes you, it's like arguing with a brick wall), but to be fair your first post in this thread said


And again, your recommended calculator recommends a 600W PSU for a GPU that can have 500+W in transients.

No less peak 600w. It's an advertisement number only.

500w transients is crazy. 1kw please.

 

[dirtyferret]

And again, your recommended calculator recommends a 600W PSU for a GPU that can have 500+W in transients.

it's a bit more complicated than that, I'm not sure which GPU you are talking about but let's call it GPU X and it has 500w spikes and we stick it with an older ATX 700w unit. Obviously a very good chance the OCP gets triggered (or worse). Than you have a 700w ATX v3.0 and PCIe 5.0 unit with a 12VHPWR set at 600W (no such unit exists). In "theory" that ATX 3.0 should handle GPU X as it can delivery twice the power for a short time. This is not to say go buy a 700w unit for GPU X but rather calculators are a tool but an understanding of needs and PSU abilities is a far greater one.

 

[maxfly]

it's a bit more complicated than that, I'm not sure which GPU you are talking about but let's call it GPU X and it has 500w spikes and we stick it with an older ATX 700w unit. Obviously a very good chance the OCP gets triggered (or worse). Than you have a 700w ATX v3.0 and PCIe 5.0 unit with a 12VHPWR set at 600W (no such unit exists). In "theory" that ATX 3.0 should handle GPU X as it can delivery twice the power for a short time. This is not to say go buy a 700w unit for GPU X but rather calculators are a tool but an understanding of needs and PSU abilities is a far greater one.

The problem is, there are a lot of members here who believe the units overall wattage is what deals with spikes, not its OCP. It's been a joy reading some of the boneheaded transient spike comments in this thread.

 

[Noci]

psu calculator. sites that have their personal interests vs honest sites​

I admit I'm a noob in this field, but remember I just used as much PSU calculators as I could find and feeded them with exactly the same data of my intended build at that time.
Of course ignoring their recommendations for a certain brand or model, just collecting the actual wattage needed by my configuration according to these calculators. I would not call sites with 'personal interests' dishonest, merely an extention of a marketing tool if you use a PSU calculator of a certain brand.
Then it seemed there were not really extreme variations in the outcomes, I just took the average number from the sum of them and added some overprovision (anticipating on future upgrades). After that started looking for a good 750 ~ 850 W PSU by watching numerous reviews.

As at that time the price differences between 750W and 850W models were not huge, so I looked for a 850W one which scored good in professional reviews, not only on efficiency but also how 'clean' as in ripple & noise the supplied power was.
I choose not a the top of the list model (as most of the time they're scoring lower on value for money), just a good one for a reasonable price compared to the competition and a long warranty.

Maybe not the best way if I look at the heated discussions here, but hey that's how I did it .

So I ended up with a MSI MPG A850GF at that time, happy ever since .

And I repeat what many have said before here; don't go cheap on a PSU, but go for quality and reliability, as anything that is build without a solid base/foundation, is prone to trouble in the long term.

 

[Bill_Bright]

psu calculator. sites that have their personal interests vs honest sites

More ridiculous, total nonsense!

It is misinformation (and clear falsehoods!) nonsensical FUD like that that does absolutely nothing but create confusion and distrust of technical information sites like TPU.

I admit I'm a noob in this field

Then stop spewing nonsense you clearly know nothing about!

Once again, not all calculators are alike. So to make a stupid "blanket" statement like that, lumping all calculators into the same pile like that is simply... well... stupid!!!! And clearly shows you are a naïve noob in the field.

Let's remind every one reading that they were all naïve noobs once too. Did that automatically make you or us an idiot?

For about the 18th time, the eXtreme OuterVision Calculator is not like all the others. So to keep lumping them into the same pile is like saying a Yugo is the same as a Lexus.

Have you even bothered to check it out? Have you noticed how flexible it is with a huge (more than any other) data base of CPUs, GPUs, drives, RAM, even fans and water cooling options? All of which let users fine tune their needs? Surely not or you are such a noob you just don't understand.

Did you notice in its main findings area it does not recommend a specific brand? It doesn't - indicating your "personal interest" accusations are nothing but ignorant nonsense. Yes, later on they do show specific brand options - but if you bothered to read the disclaimers they readily admit and clearly reveal they need to have some sort of revenue to pay the bills and so they will show some ads. But those are ads and even an idiot should understand that! Why don't you!

Get real people! Do your homework. If you don't like using calculators, and know how to research EVERY power consuming protect in your computer, that's fine! Great even. But once again, I DON'T CARE.

But what your biased opinions, and the falsehoods you believe, and worse, what you wish to spew does not mean others would not appreciate having a tool to give them a good estimate and starting point (again, a "minimum" recommendation) in their research.

 

[maxfly]

More ridiculous, total nonsense!

It is misinformation (and clear falsehoods!) nonsensical FUD like that that does absolutely nothing but create confusion and distrust of technical information sites like TPU.


Then stop spewing nonsense you clearly know nothing about!

Once again, not all calculators are alike. So to make a stupid "blanket" statement like that, lumping all calculators into the same pile like that is simply... well... stupid!!!! And clearly shows you are a naïve noob in the field.

Let's remind every one reading that they were all naïve noobs once too. Did that automatically make you or us an idiot?

For about the 18th time, the eXtreme OuterVision Calculator is not like all the others. So to keep lumping them into the same pile is like saying a Yugo is the same as a Lexus.

Have you even bothered to check it out? Have you noticed how flexible it is with a huge (more than any other) data base of CPUs, GPUs, drives, RAM, even fans and water cooling options? All of which let users fine tune their needs? Surely not or you are such a noob you just don't understand.

Did you notice in its main findings area it does not recommend a specific brand? It doesn't - indicating your "personal interest" accusations are nothing but ignorant nonsense. Yes, later on they do show specific brand options - but if you bothered to read the disclaimers they readily admit and clearly reveal they need to have some sort of revenue to pay the bills and so they will show some ads. But those are ads and even an idiot should understand that! Why don't you!

Get real people! Do your homework. If you don't like using calculators, and know how to research EVERY power consuming protect in your computer, that's fine! Great even. But once again, I DON'T CARE.

But what your biased opinions, and the falsehoods you believe, and worse, what you wish to spew does not mean others would not appreciate having a tool to give them a good estimate and starting point (again, a "minimum" recommendation) in their research.

Easy, easy Bill. I'm pretty sure in a round about way he's agreeing with you. He's not saying they're ALL out to mislead consumers and push their high dollar recommendations. The ones that are available from manufacturer websites he takes with a grain of salt. Vs calculators like Outervision that don't have a dog in the fight he takes more seriously but because he doesn't know who's calculator to believe 100%. He uses his own formula in reaching a consensus. He's not saying his way is right or wrong, or that anyone/everyone should implicitly follow his lead. Only that he's found it works for him, in this confusing world of self serving manufacturer based calculators.

 

[Noci]

@Bill_Bright , perhaps you misinterpeted my argumentation.
I just stated how I made my decision on buying a new PSU a couple of years ago with the aid of PSU calculators.
I just used a bunch of online available PSU calculators to get an average needed wattage value and from that and then I chose my decision path.

I do not have any preference on one of those PSU calculators (yes I used extreme outervision calculator too), they are just handy tools for noobs like me.
I also never implied anybody is an idiot of thinking otherwise, no idea were you got that from.

Because I'm a noob on (complex) electrical stuff, I watched/read an endless number of reviews too and found that the hardest thing is to filter the content on legit info or BS . But it did learn me there is waaay more to a good PSU as just the stated wattage, so it made me better informed than just a value from a PSU calculator.

No idea what triggered your hefty reaction, maybe just that I repeated the title of this thread (for the record I did not make that): psu calculator. sites that have their personal interests vs honest sites

So please take a deep breath and chill, reactions like this are quite dissapointing and have absolutely no added value in my point of view.
Have a nice cold beer on me . cheers

 

[Frick]

The problem is, there are a lot of members here who believe the units overall wattage is what deals with spikes, not its OCP. It's been a joy reading some of the boneheaded transient spike comments in this thread.

Peak is probably a better world for what I meant.

Gee whiz. And yet here you are getting into "a thing". So it seems you do want to argue.

Yet no where in my comment that you quoted does it say to "only" or to "just" rely on a calculator - the point of my reply. And my comment also clearly states that is the minimum PSU size to get.

So yeah, I will stand my ground and be a brick wall - and you can keep throwing stones since you seem so inclined.

Ok so lets keep going with semantics, which I know you love. You said researching all components take a long time, so you recommend using a calculator. You didn't say "use only a calculator", but surely what you wrote means "so use a calculator instead of spending all that time researching"? Because otherwise your statement makes no sense at all. As for the rest of your post what you say is "Calculator pad the results but Outervision not as much".

it's a bit more complicated than that, I'm not sure which GPU you are talking about but let's call it GPU X and it has 500w spikes and we stick it with an older ATX 700w unit. Obviously a very good chance the OCP gets triggered (or worse). Than you have a 700w ATX v3.0 and PCIe 5.0 unit with a 12VHPWR set at 600W (no such unit exists). In "theory" that ATX 3.0 should handle GPU X as it can delivery twice the power for a short time. This is not to say go buy a 700w unit for GPU X but rather calculators are a tool but an understanding of needs and PSU abilities is a far greater one.

The 6900XT specifically.

No idea what triggered your hefty reaction, maybe just that I repeated the title of this thread (for the record I did not make that): psu calculator. sites that have their personal interests vs honest sites

It's just Bill being Bill.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Ok so lets keep going with semantics, which I know you love.

LOL I think it so funny, in a sad, if not pathetic way, when someone claims it is a matter of semantics after they are called out for being technically incorrect. This isn't a Facebook chat page. This is TPU, a "technical" support site. We should be technically correct when posting technical information. That is me being me, and proud of it.

And for the record, claiming someone said, or meant something they didn't say or mean is NOT a matter of semantics. It is misrepresenting what they said, often innocently, but, sadly, often intentionally too. And when intentional, it is often with mal- or deceptive intent. In any case, it is not cool.

Yes, I said researching all components takes a long time - but you decided to leave out where I prefaced that by saying,

The right way to determine the proper power supply size you need is to research all the components individually (motherboard, CPU, graphics, type and number of RAM sticks, type and number of drives, cooling devices and each connected USB device), determine their maximum power demand. Add those values up to get the minimum size supply you should get.

You said researching all components take a long time, so you recommend using a calculator. You didn't say "use only a calculator", but surely what you wrote means "so use a calculator instead of spending all that time researching"? Because otherwise your statement makes no sense at all. As for the rest of your post what you say is "Calculator pad the results but Outervision not as much".

What I meant is what I said - much of which you decided to leave out of your reply - this after you claimed you didn't want to get into this, then jumped in.

Yes, I also said the eOVC (eXtreme OuterVision Calculator) is "the most conservative" when padding the results. But note it still pads the results! And I said, "and that's a good thing!" and I explained why. But again, you decided to leave that out in your "not getting into it" replies.

Also left out is where I clearly recommended users set "CPU Utilization to 100%" and "Computer Utilization Time to 16 hours per day" to pad the results even more.

NO WHERE, NOT ONCE did I ever say users cannot add extra padding when purchasing, if they so desire. And NO WHERE did I say to "only" or "just" use "a" calculator, or even "the" eOVC, as I was falsely accused of when you were not jumping into this.

So for the umptenth time, since you and others clearly believe you can do a better job of researching and calculating your power needs (and if so, that's great!), then don't use it! I don't care.

And just for the record, not every computer user uses a monster graphics card with outrageous, instantaneous power demands. In fact, not every computer user even uses a graphics card.

No idea what triggered your hefty reaction, maybe just that I repeated the title of this thread

You are correct. You did not originate it. My apologies if I caused confusion or offense there. But note you didn't just repeat it, you put it in HUGE BOLD text. Why, if not to emphasis it? Of course the site owners have a personal interest in the site. Name one that doesn't. Even government and non-profits do. That in no way suggests they are dishonest, or on the take. And again, the eOVC site is NOT affiliated with any PSU maker so again, in their calculations results they do NOT recommend any specific brand - as this calculator does.

I see no point in discussing this further. For those who know how to research power demands and prefer to calculate their PSU requirements manually, great! Go for it. For those who don't, the eOVC is a valuable tool to use to determine their minimum needs.

Time to move on.

 

[Dr. Dro]

LOL I think it so funny, in a sad, if not pathetic way, when someone claims it is a matter of semantics after they are called out for being technically incorrect. This isn't a Facebook chat page. This is TPU, a "technical" support site. We should be technically correct when posting technical information. That is me being me, and proud of it.

And for the record, claiming someone said, or meant something they didn't say or mean is NOT a matter of semantics. It is misrepresenting what they said, often innocently, but, sadly, often intentionally too. And when intentional, it is often with mal- or deceptive intent. In any case, it is not cool.

Yes, I said researching all components takes a long time - but you decided to leave out where I prefaced that by saying,


What I meant is what I said - much of which you decided to leave out of your reply - this after you claimed you didn't want to get into this, then jumped in.

Yes, I also said the eOVC (eXtreme OuterVision Calculator) is "the most conservative" when padding the results. But note it still pads the results! And I said, "and that's a good thing!" and I explained why. But again, you decided to leave that out in your "not getting into it" replies.

Also left out is where I clearly recommended users set "CPU Utilization to 100%" and "Computer Utilization Time to 16 hours per day" to pad the results even more.

NO WHERE, NOT ONCE did I ever say users cannot add extra padding when purchasing, if they so desire. And NO WHERE did I say to "only" or "just" use "a" calculator, or even "the" eOVC, as I was falsely accused of when you were not jumping into this.

So for the umptenth time, since you and others clearly believe you can do a better job of researching and calculating your power needs (and if so, that's great!), then don't use it! I don't care.

And just for the record, not every computer user uses a monster graphics card with outrageous, instantaneous power demands. In fact, not every computer user even uses a graphics card.


You are correct. You did not originate it. My apologies if I caused confusion or offense there. But note you didn't just repeat it, you put it in HUGE BOLD text. Why, if not to emphasis it? Of course the site owners have a personal interest in the site. Name one that doesn't. Even government and non-profits do. That in no way suggests they are dishonest, or on the take. And again, the eOVC site is NOT affiliated with any PSU maker so again, in their calculations results they do NOT recommend any specific brand - as this calculator does.

I see no point in discussing this further. For those who know how to research power demands and prefer to calculate their PSU requirements manually, great! Go for it. For those who don't, the eOVC is a valuable tool to use to determine their minimum needs.

Time to move on.

Bill it's become obvious you're emotionally attached to the Outervision calculator site. The truth is, that site only works for basic builds. It's not a problem with it per se; it's that at the high-end, hardware vendors and manufacturers simply don't respect specifications anymore.

AMD and NVIDIA GPUs have grown so power hungry that the power excursion peaks can be absolutely insane. AMD and Intel both violate their electrical specifications and power delivery guidelines recklessly, recently we've seen Intel do that to the point of endangering people's chips, and AMD allowing for the TDP of the Ryzen 7 9700X to be increased by practically 85% in exchange for like 1-3% performance - truly, there are no limits to what they'll do in the name of the almighty Cinebench score. Aftermarket hardware sometimes drastically changes the electrical specification of a product - see the RX 7900 XTX designs juiced to chug more power than a 4090 (despite still not catching up to them in performance, not even close) - or the Core i9's with enhanced thermal velocity boost that will chug as much power as the processor can hope for until it gets hot. These tools simply are not capable of accounting for these variances and complications, some, such as Cooler Master's, outright ignores them.

When we say that the calc is no good, it's not because the service is bad, or that we're Mr. Know-It-Alls that know better than the creators of the tool. It's because it's simply unsuitable for the job, think of trying to extract a Torx screw with a Phillips screwdriver - it's kind of like that.

Corsair's "calculator" suggested me the RM1200x SHIFT, which is probably the only reasonable suggestion for a machine of my PC's caliber.

Cooler Master's is insanely bad, like, if you wanted to make of my PC a quick IED, follow it - it'll even recommend unrated or 80+ White/Cybenetics Standard supplies:

and then there's Outervision's - which in Basic mode manages to make more sense than its hilariously misguided Expert mode, because yes, experts will limit their system to 90% TDP

End of the day - these are merely tools. Their word is not law, far from it. Experienced system builders will always know the ballpark of consumption, cooling requirements and overprovisioning requirements for any given build - and then, only then you may start searching for deals on a suitable power supply

 

[freeagent]

I was running a 750 up until recently. With distributed computing I was doing 650 at the wall with no problem at all. I just felt bad for beating on it.

 

[dirtyferret]

Out of curiosity I ran an example on the extreme calculator using a worse case GPU scenario of the RTX 3090ti with performance results from Computer Base (it's in German so when you read it make sure you use a yelling inner voice in a polite and efficient manner) . From CB's results; the RTX3090ti can peak at 550w load by itself and Fricks RX 6950 XT hits 525w. Rest of the system I used the 13900k, 32 GB DDR5 ram, 240 AIO cooler, 3 x 120mm fans, two SSDs, 100% CPU utilization at stock settings and eight hours gaming per day (someone needs to touch grass) ,...no RGB as that would add on at least another 500w by itself/s

Personally if someone came up to me asking for a recommendation I would say start looking at 1000w CWT CXT or CSZ platforms which are ATX 3.0 spec and sold by the likes of NZXT, thermaltake, Montech and others and work your way up from there for needs.

Using the calculator they spit out 875w unit. Doable? Maybe on an ATX 3.0 with the 12VHPWR set at 600W but no such 875w unit currently exists. So 900w unit? Apevia makes one, would i use it? No. Would I recommend it? No. Would it even work without issue?...betting odds would heavily favor no. Reality is most people would go to 1000w regardless although the calcultor reccomends the Apevia Jupiter 1000w on Amazon which is 1) sold out on amazon and 2) kind of junky.

So did the extreme calculator work in this extreme scenario? Kind of, using a quality and modern unit it sent you in the right "direction" but it can also send you in a wrong one if you don't do your homework which I want to clearly state the majority of people on here have said...and some not so much

I just felt bad for beating on it.

Canuck PC hardware protective services have been notified of your abuse and are on their way to your home as I post this.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Bill it's become obvious you're emotionally attached to the Outervision calculator site.

"Emotionally" attached? More nonsense. I am attached to that calculator because I have done my homework and determined that (1) it is not like other calculators, (2) it is extremely flexible and its databases are very comprehensive, (3) it is conservative in it's padding and therefore, IMO, (4) it is the best out in its estimates of the minimum PSU needed. Not maximum, not the exact size, but estimated minimum.

Those are facts, any who cares about the facts can verify for themselves. Emotions have nothing to do with it.

Where I get emotional is when nonsense is spewed and my comments are intentionally misrepresented.

 

[dirtyferret]

Corsair's "calculator" suggested me the RM1200x SHIFT, which is probably the only reasonable suggestion for a machine of my PC's caliber.

Nonsense, if you used DF's PSU calculator it would have said get the XPG Core Reactor II 1200w instead. It uses a "similar" platform that performs better and only costs $165 on amazon. That would save you $20 from the Corsair price (after you Venmo DF $25 for using the calculator).

​

 

[Dr. Dro]

Nonsense, if you used DF's PSU calculator it would have said get the XPG Core Reactor II 1200w instead. It uses a "similar" platform that performs better and only costs $165 on amazon. That would save you $20 from the Corsair price (after you Venmo DF $25 for using the calculator).

​

Yeah, Core Reactor is a good pick, although, Corsair's calculator will recommend Corsair products

 

[dirtyferret]

Yeah, Core Reactor is a good pick, although, Corsair's calculator will recommend Corsair products

another reason to use the DF calculator

 

[igormp]

Transients are important to the point they literally reworked the ATX specification itself to account for them, mate.

While they're indeed relevant, I believe most modern PSUs are made with this in mind and should be able to handle such transients without issues (specially after the whole 3000 transients issue), so for a good quality PSU transients spikes should not really be accounted (otherwise you'd need 1000W+ PSUs).

With that said, I used to use the outervision calculator many years ago (like over 10 years?), but I just don't see the point. It's not hard to research the power consumption of components, sum those up, add some overhead of your liking and get to a final number.
Only reason that I upgraded from my previous 650W PSU (that served me really well for ages) was because it was old, and it wouldn't be enough to handle a 2nd GPU, so I did the jump to 850W and will likely keep it for years (unless I add a 3rd GPU, which is unlikely).

 

[Onasi]

Calculators are useful for people starting out with building their own rigs and/or using relatively mainstream parts that are fairly low wattage and confirm to their stated power budgets. Some are better than others, but they mostly will get you to the rough ballpark where you want to be.
The story changes with enthusiast parts that can be all over the place sometimes, but it’s still not useless. I long ago switched to just calculating things myself by summing up all the hardware I will use at peak power consumption (using tests from reliable sources like TPU) and then overprovisioning about 20% on top to have some legroom. This method is yet to fail me.

 

[dirtyferret]

I believe most modern PSUs are made with this in mind and should be able to handle such transients without issues

ATX spec 3.X are otherwise the spikes can trigger a conservative set OCP depending on the exact unit as some brands/oems did make changes to their line but did not necessarily label them so the brands could sell out old inventory

PSU transients spikes should not really be accounted (otherwise you'd need 1000W+ PSUs).

Once again with a ATX 3.X sure but you are seeing 1000w PSU being flat our recommend for gaming builds with no known hardware. You see "just get a 1000w unit and you are good" but if the person in question is using a CPU that tops out at 100w and a GPU that tops out at 150w than your 650w would be more then enough (even a 550w if no future upgrades will be done). Especially when a lot of these people don't understand the cost and follow someones link to a $180 unit only to see that Apevia 1000w unit for $90 and say "well that's a 1000w unit for half the cost, I'm getting that one!" when they actually could have gotten a quality 650w for that cost that would likely 1) last them longer and 2) perform better.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

So do these calculators use the default advertised 105w for 5900X which can pull 200w? That's a 95w deviant!
_______________
As some guy said, we all started somewhere with mistakes. The first one is using a calculator without any research at all.
_______________
Good thing for Tech forums like this one. If people take a few minutes will find threads like this will lots of good information!!
_______________

We're in an age of mass communication. PSU calculators hopefully will die off as a result. All knowledgeable people here know the rule of thumb. Go big or stay home.

I experienced a 200mhz Overclock increase when LN2 the old FX processors going from CP series 850w to CP series 1Kw. It brought my max cpu validation up to 7685mhz Edit inserted here: (That's about 2.1 v-core.) This is no joke, true results. I used both PSUs for well over 10 years. Because back in 09', I researched. Good Old Jonny Guru had nothing bad to say about these units, so I splurged got 2 of them.