new PSU calculator - Up to date!!

Main Rig:
312W @ 100% load. Folding for Grid.org

Gaming Rig:
589W @ 80% load.

Server 1:
633W @ 80% load.

Server 2:
498W @ 80% load.
 
BillytheImpaler said:
479W @ 100%. My system is always at 100% due to running FAH.
Not too bad with my EPS12v 550W PSU.
Click to expand...
Even if your system is running Folding the system will not use full power, the videocard isn't fully used, neither are the harddisks, Optical drive and USB devices.
 
The % useage only effects the CPU(s) and video card(s) on this site. All the other wattages are considered constants. You're right that the GPU is not being used but I doubt it's using much juice anyway as it's a lowly Radeon 9100 AGP 4x card.
 
Last edited:
Noto said:
site is a really good idea! but could someone confirm if the figures are accurate in the real world?

Cheers

Ernest
Click to expand...
As i said, the watt metre with my psu, which has been found by review sites to be about 10 watts out, says i'm using 250 under load, and the psu calculator thinks i should be using 400-450w.
I think its fairly inaccurate with most things except the cpu.

I've always suspected that pc power ratings ar way over the top.
 
Last edited:
354watts

Just bought a knew PSU aswell. from a 500w Jeantech to my Hiper 580w.

Thought it may of been higher than that though.
 
I think it's way out. 114W for an overclocked 3000+ venice @ 2.5ghz 1.55v you are kidding right? I am still cooling it passively with a scythe ninja @ 44deg full load! Either the stythe has a thermal resistance of 0.21C/W fanless (that's good water cooling performance!) or their numbers are rubbish!

My whole system, including 2 TFT monitors only draws 220 odd watts while running 3dmark. That's measured using a power meter and as such includes the power wastage in the psu. That website reckons 304W .... probably twice reality.

Personally I would take the whole thing with a HUGE bucket full of salt. I can't help but feel they have a vested interest in selling high power psus!

Marc
 
marc mercer said:
I think it's way out. 114W for an overclocked 3000+ venice @ 2.5ghz 1.55v you are kidding right? I am still cooling it passively with a scythe ninja @ 44deg full load! Either the stythe has a thermal resistance of 0.21C/W fanless (that's good water cooling performance!) or their numbers are rubbish!
Click to expand...
You are right, but also remember that the onboard sensor is propably inaccurate and real CPU temp is higher, also you will not have a 100% load on the CPU as that is very difficult to do, not even Folding, Prime95, SuperPI stress the CPU fully

The PSU calculator is a worst case scenario, you will always be limited by a component, if you are running a graphics intensive benchmark/game the videocard might be fully stressed but as a result the CPU isn't because it has to wait for the videocard to finish.
 
Dutch Guy said:
You are right, but also remember that the onboard sensor is propably inaccurate and real CPU temp is higher, also you will not have a 100% load on the CPU as that is very difficult to do, not even Folding, Prime95, SuperPI stress the CPU fully

The PSU calculator is a worst case scenario, you will always be limited by a component, if you are running a graphics intensive benchmark/game the videocard might be fully stressed but as a result the CPU isn't because it has to wait for the videocard to finish.
Click to expand...

I think my system gets closer to 100% CPU and GPU load than most peoples, BF2+ 2 sets of F@H really really really makes temps go :eek: from around 42C 100% folding to 45C 100% BF2+Folding.

I got a power draw thingy and it said 480W, thats BF2+F@H. Thats still a hell of a lot :eek:

Conc
 
Silent PC Review said:
Our own experience indicates that despite all the new power hungry components such as >75W video cards and >120W CPUs, it is still rare to find a desktop computer than draws much more than 200W DC under typical demanding applications. Around 300W DC looks to be about the highest power draw from a single CPU full-bore high end system at this time (Feb 2005). Although some headroom is always good to have, there seems little question that consumers are being persuaded to pay for power capacity that is never used.
Click to expand...
Add another 50w for higher power gpu's and dual core cpu's, and i doubt there will be many systems out there using more than 350w.
SPCR said:
Why this state of affairs exists is a matter of marketing and technical obfuscation, probably more by accident than any massive conspiracy. With relatively low current requirements prior to the AMD Athlon processor, the aforementioned 230W and 250W were perfectly adequate for PC systems, even if the power supplies didn't deliver full rated performance. That changed with the Athlon and then the P4. PSU makers were quick to introduce higher rated models said to be required for the new power hungry processors. It was a good marketing opportunity. Rather than "Our 250W PSU is better than theirs," it is easier to sell the message "Our 300W PSU is better than their 250W PSU." Bigger is always better, isn't it? It also allowed higher prices to be charged.
Click to expand...
SPCR said:
A counterpoint is AMD's system builder's guide, which suggests higher numbers: up to ~180W DC for a typical system and ~250W DC for a high performance system, but these numbers are obtained by adding the maximum power rating for each component, then taking 20% off to account for real-world conditions. It is almost impossible for any application to demand 80% of maximum power draw from each component simultaneously. Intel's PSU recommendations are similar.
Click to expand...
Which is why my power metre reads 250 and that psu calculator says 450.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom