Posted by
Hemos
on from the lets'-get-'em-together dept.
CainX writes "A comparison of five power supply units was posted recently. Anandtech has done a more complete review and examined 18 of the newest models in the plus 300 watt range." Power supplies tend to be one of those forgotten, but ever so important parts of machine construction.
Not wanting to put a downer on things...
by
WIAKywbfatw
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...but it strikes me that these reviews of PSUs aren't as accurate as they should be. I'm not wanting to run the guys at AnandTech or elsewhere down (because, most of the time, they do a great job) but it strikes me that, when you look at PSUs (as opposed to CPUs, graphics cards or HDDs) then perhaps testing just one sample of each product is flawed.
After all, some of the measurements taken to distinguish good from bad were to the fifth significant figure. It strikes me that if you have to be that precise to differentiate between the winners and the also-rans then you've got to test more than one of each PSU - three would be a minimum, five or more would be better - and average out the test results to give you figures that are more representative of the quality of these products.
After all, not every Zalman ZM400A-APF is going to have a 12V min/max fluctuation of only 0.005V, and not every Enermax EG651P-VE FMA 550W is going to have a fluctuaction of 0.65V. Who knows, perhaps this was just a particularly good Zalman and a particularly bad Enermax? Testing more units means accurate results, which is a good thing.
I appreciate that testing three (or five, or however many) of each PSU means more work - you have to get x many more of each unit, test x many more times, process x much more data before averaging out your results - but, sometimes, I think it's warranted. Without wanting to get down on anyone, I'd like to suggest that, where called for, they try to source more units and test more thoroughly.
And, before people start flaming me for not knowing what I'm talking about, how much work is involved, etc, let me just say that I've run a review lab and I do know what I'm talking about, how much work is involved, etc. It's not a trivial amount but, sometimes, it is worth it.
(No doubt that's just a cue for half a dozen people to tell me where I'm wrong. I welcome objective criticisms but you can keep any childish flames.)
--
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Slashdot Mirror
...but it strikes me that these reviews of PSUs aren't as accurate as they should be. I'm not wanting to run the guys at AnandTech or elsewhere down (because, most of the time, they do a great job) but it strikes me that, when you look at PSUs (as opposed to CPUs, graphics cards or HDDs) then perhaps testing just one sample of each product is flawed.
After all, some of the measurements taken to distinguish good from bad were to the fifth significant figure. It strikes me that if you have to be that precise to differentiate between the winners and the also-rans then you've got to test more than one of each PSU - three would be a minimum, five or more would be better - and average out the test results to give you figures that are more representative of the quality of these products.
After all, not every Zalman ZM400A-APF is going to have a 12V min/max fluctuation of only 0.005V, and not every Enermax EG651P-VE FMA 550W is going to have a fluctuaction of 0.65V. Who knows, perhaps this was just a particularly good Zalman and a particularly bad Enermax? Testing more units means accurate results, which is a good thing.
I appreciate that testing three (or five, or however many) of each PSU means more work - you have to get x many more of each unit, test x many more times, process x much more data before averaging out your results - but, sometimes, I think it's warranted. Without wanting to get down on anyone, I'd like to suggest that, where called for, they try to source more units and test more thoroughly.
And, before people start flaming me for not knowing what I'm talking about, how much work is involved, etc, let me just say that I've run a review lab and I do know what I'm talking about, how much work is involved, etc. It's not a trivial amount but, sometimes, it is worth it.
(No doubt that's just a cue for half a dozen people to tell me where I'm wrong. I welcome objective criticisms but you can keep any childish flames.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg