XIGMATEK psu's

[tbone8ty]

saw these at newegg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817815001

i was wondering has anybody reviewd these yet? know anything about them?

they look like very solid psu's

your thoughts?

[Oklahoma Wolf]

OEM is Channel Well... should be the same platform as the Thermaltake Toughpower 650W. Lots of companies are using this design right now.

[Waymon3X6]

I wouldn't recommend that... Seems to cheap for a unit that says it produces 650w.

I've never even heard of the brand before...

[poohball]

you can check the review by searching it, all review sites shows 85-88% efficient. My buddy bought one and the quality is top nortch, I mean top craftmanship and the material inside(cables, holder) looks really nice and complete.

one thing I found interesting is, I read and saw the pics saying that unlike other brand, they use highend japanese capacitor instead of china or taiwan capacitor. Also the capacitor they use is somethign about solidstate and is not the liquid inside kind. (but I don't know what that means)

[jonnyGURU]

all review sites shows 85-88% efficient.

Link or shens.

Very few PSU reviewers have the equipment necessary to determine actual efficiency. If the reviewer simply quotes the manufacturer saying "85-88% efficient" then why is that to be believed? They're regurgitating marketing BS.

85% and up efficiency is VERY hard to obtain.

one thing I found interesting is, I read and saw the pics saying that unlike other brand, they use highend japanese capacitor instead of china or taiwan capacitor.

Actually, pretty much any CWT build unit has Japanese capacitors. Most decent PSU's have Jap caps these days because the price difference is only about $1 to $1.50 for the whole build and it's another bullet point for marketing. It something you can tell the customer to give them warm fuzzies although typically it means nothing to the PSU's performance and very little to the unit's longevity.

Also the capacitor they use is somethign about solidstate and is not the liquid inside kind. (but I don't know what that means)

There's only one solid cap in the whole build, which isn't really unusual for a PSU. What's unusual is if the marketing B.S.er's want to make that a bullet point or not.

[poohball]

Link or shens.

Very few PSU reviewers have the equipment necessary to determine actual efficiency. If the reviewer simply quotes the manufacturer saying "85-88% efficient" then why is that to be believed? They're regurgitating marketing BS.

85% and up efficiency is VERY hard to obtain.



Actually, pretty much any CWT build unit has Japanese capacitors. Most decent PSU's have Jap caps these days because the price difference is only about $1 to $1.50 for the whole build and it's another bullet point for marketing. It something you can tell the customer to give them warm fuzzies although typically it means nothing to the PSU's performance and very little to the unit's longevity.



There's only one solid cap in the whole build, which isn't really unusual for a PSU. What's unusual is if the marketing B.S.er's want to make that a bullet point or not.


Hum why don't you do a search on internet and you will find them just like other people do?

"Most decent PSU's have Jap caps these days " What's wrong with that? don't that mean this PSU is a decent one?

seems more like some stupid trasher trying to trash it to me.

[[Spectre]]

Hum why don't you do a search on internet and you will find them just like other people do?

"Most decent PSU's have Jap caps these days " What's wrong with that? don't that mean this PSU is a decent one?

seems more like some stupid trasher trying to trash it to me.

Because a search on the internet does NOT turn up a bunch of reviews of the Xigmatek showing 85-88% efficiency.

[poohball]

Lets try this.... open your web browser....type in www.google.com...type in xigmatek psu on search field. Oh and click enter.

[[Spectre]]

Lets try this.... open your web browser....type in www.google.com...type in xigmatek psu on search field. Oh and click enter.

Done again; no results with 85-88% efficiency. So try again.

[poohball]

really?? try harder....I found one with 85.1% for their 850w model.

[[Spectre]]

really?? try harder....I found one with 85.1% for their 850w model.

Really? Try harder. The techpowerup article is a not the PSU asked about and is a single review (not all reviews) at a single load step not a range of loads. Now if you take the BS approach of Xigmatek PSU's in general it is even worse for your assertion since the 1200w at techpowerup hit only 80.1% at one load step not a range of lads.

[SparkyJJO]

poohball, I suggest you pay atention to who you are referring to as a "trasher" - jonnyguru knows more about PSUs inside and out than most anyone ever can hope to.

Oklahoma wolf, if it indeed is the same thing as the toughpower for the most part, then that's a pretty good deal then it seems. Any verification of this?

[jonnyGURU]

really?? try harder....I found one with 85.1% for their 850w model.

Yet you're incapable of providing the link. Interesting. Are you a troll or a Xigmatek shill?

I don't mean to poop on your parade. I never said I had anything bad to say about Xigamatek or any current CWT built unit on the market. What I do dislike is FUD and the distribution of mis-information, and unless you can provide a link to a review showing 85%+ efficiency for this model PSU you're a Xigmatek shill.

What's wrong with Japanese caps? Absolutely nothing. I never said there was. Yet somehow you're trying to flip it around as if I said there was. Troll? I merely pointed out that most PSU's these days have Jap caps and it's a over-hyped bullet point. In most cases there's little benefit to a Jap cap vs. a good Taiwan cap (good like Teapo, SamXon, etc., not like AsiaX, JEE, Fuhjyyu, etc.) and why bother pimping a PSU for having A SOLID CAP when the benefit to having solid caps in the first place is longer life and the fact of the matter is if the unit has good caps to begin with, having one solid cap in there is going to do little to nothing for the longevity of the PSU.

Stick to the facts: It's a CWT built unit so it's probably a good unit. No reason to trash it. Although we have seen this platform over stretched (Koolance and Hiper, for example), so I'd say if you plan on pushing it long term in harsh conditions, may want to hold out for a very thorough review.

[poohball]

"Stick to the facts: It's a CWT built unit so it's probably a good unit. No reason to trash it. Although we have seen this platform over stretched (Koolance and Hiper, for example), so I'd say if you plan on pushing it long term in harsh conditions, may want to hold out for a very thorough review"

May be you should say that earlier. Anyway, what do you think about techpowerup's set up? I see people usually start bashing by challenging the testing site. Let see what you think about the setup first.

[jonnyGURU]

May be you should say that earlier.


Why should I have to? Someone else that's just as knowledgable (OK Wolf) already chimed in with his two cents. That's good enough for this thread. I'm not a "me too" guy and I'm not endorsing anyone's product, but when I see FUD I'm going to try to squash it. Waymon's post was sort of ignorant too. Guess I shouldn't have singled you out. ;)


Anyway, what do you think about techpowerup's set up? I see people usually start bashing by challenging the testing site. Let see what you think about the setup first.

Their resistor bank is adequate. And at least they measure the DC current between the load and the PSU instead of "guestimating" what the load is based on the value of the resistors (some sites w/ dummy loads will do this and come out with some really whack numbers.) What do YOU think about the test setup? :rolleyes:

[poohball]

Why should I have to? Someone else that's just as knowledgable (OK Wolf) already chimed in with his two cents. That's good enough for this thread. I'm not a "me too" guy and I'm not endorsing anyone's product, but when I see FUD I'm going to try to squash it. Waymon's post was sort of ignorant too. Guess I shouldn't have singled you out. ;)



Their resistor bank is adequate. And at least they measure the DC current between the load and the PSU instead of "guestimating" what the load is based on the value of the resistors (some sites w/ dummy loads will do this and come out with some really whack numbers.) What do YOU think about the test setup? :rolleyes:

Oh well.....=P

and regarding their test setup, they only thing I can say is it looks great, I am not a technical guy at all. Btw, they are the site tested with the 85.1% eff on 850W and 80% on 1200W.

[metro.cl]

Yet you're incapable of providing the link. Interesting. Are you a troll or a Xigmatek shill?

I don't mean to poop on your parade. I never said I had anything bad to say about Xigamatek or any current CWT built unit on the market. What I do dislike is FUD and the distribution of mis-information, and unless you can provide a link to a review showing 85%+ efficiency for this model PSU you're a Xigmatek shill.

What's wrong with Japanese caps? Absolutely nothing. I never said there was. Yet somehow you're trying to flip it around as if I said there was. Troll? I merely pointed out that most PSU's these days have Jap caps and it's a over-hyped bullet point. In most cases there's little benefit to a Jap cap vs. a good Taiwan cap (good like Teapo, SamXon, etc., not like AsiaX, JEE, Fuhjyyu, etc.) and why bother pimping a PSU for having A SOLID CAP when the benefit to having solid caps in the first place is longer life and the fact of the matter is if the unit has good caps to begin with, having one solid cap in there is going to do little to nothing for the longevity of the PSU.

Stick to the facts: It's a CWT built unit so it's probably a good unit. No reason to trash it. Although we have seen this platform over stretched (Koolance and Hiper, for example), so I'd say if you plan on pushing it long term in harsh conditions, may want to hold out for a very thorough review.

It would be nice to see a review made by you, do you know anyone at Xigmatek? if not send me a PM and i will help you get one :)

[jonnyGURU]

Already have a contact. I think Wolf and Tony might have a contact already too. I don't do the reviews any more due to conflict of interest, and Wolf has a pretty full plate.


....Btw, they are the site tested with the 85.1% eff on 850W and 80% on 1200W.

Like Spectre pointed out: Not the same unit the OP is referring to and it's only 85.1% at one particular load, not a range of loads.

[poohball]

Already have a contact. I think Wolf and Tony might have a contact already too. I don't do the reviews any more due to conflict of interest, and Wolf has a pretty full plate.



Like Spectre pointed out: Not the same unit the OP is referring to and it's only 85.1% at one particular load, not a range of loads.

So can you point out what is the range of loads?
so that 85.1% does not refer to what people usually refer to efficiency?
what should be considerred when people talk about xx% efficiency?

[[Spectre]]

I am not a technical guy at all.

So here may lie the problem.

So can you point out what is the range of loads?

There was no range of loads in that review that measured efficiency. The range of loads for that unit is 0-850w. There was a ranking of the load at ~320w.

so that 85.1% does not refer to what people usually refer to efficiency?

It refers to an efficiency value, however it does not apply when they say:

you can check the review by searching it, all review sites shows 85-88% efficient.

One review site found one particular load which the unit gave one efficiency value of 85% not all review sites show 85-88%.

what should be considerred when people talk about xx% efficiency?

The efficiency range of the unit at somewhat relevant circumstances.

[poohball]

bottom line,
base on that review, are you challenging their results that 85.1% efficiency is not correct?
Which means, base on their test you don't agree that psu has 85.1% efficiency.

[[Spectre]]

bottom line,
base on that review, are you challenging their results that 85.1% efficiency is not correct?
Which means, base on their test you don't agree that psu has 85.1% efficiency.

Bottom line not all review sites show the unit in the OP's question or all Xigmatek power supplies to be 85-88% efficient as you claimed. Furthermore, I have that reference platform and another unit based on the OP's asked about unit and neither is over 85% efficient.....let alone 88% as you asserted.

[poohball]

I think you are kinda going away from the topic now.
let me make that simple
what makes you think that techpowerup review on the 850w at 85% efficiency is not accurate or a flaw.
What argument you having?

[[Spectre]]

I think you are kinda going away from the topic now.
let me make that simple
what makes you think that techpowerup review on the 850w at 85% efficiency is not accurate or a flaw.
What argument you having?

Sorry but no. You are trying to steer the conversation into a situation where you can say you were correct; however your initial assetion that begun the discussion is false. So I'll say it again: Bottom line not all review sites show the unit in the OP's question or all Xigmatek power supplies to be 85-88% efficient as you claimed. Furthermore, I have that reference platform and another unit based on the OP's asked about unit and neither is over 85% efficient.....let alone 88% as you asserted.

[poohball]

;2780653']Sorry but no. You are trying to steer the conversation into a situation where you can say you were correct; however your initial assetion that begun the discussion is false. So I'll say it again: Bottom line not all review sites show the unit in the OP's question or all Xigmatek power supplies to be 85-88% efficient as you claimed. Furthermore, I have that reference platform and another unit based on the OP's asked about unit and neither is over 85% efficient.....let alone 88% as you asserted.

Wow nice, may be you are trying to steer away from how you stated about that 85.1% from techpowerup is not correct?
Sorry I mixed up the 850W model with the 650W model? I also know for fact that I have seen a review at 88% or 87%, but I couldn't find it yet.

Anyway.....
can you please tell us how inaccurate about techpowerup's review regarding the 850w at 85.1% efficiency now? Or you still trying to steer away?

[[Spectre]]

Wow nice, may be you are trying to steer away from how you stated about that 85.1% from techpowerup is not correct?

Where did I say that 85.1% was not correct in those exact words?

Sorry I mixed up the 850W model with the 650W model? I also know for fact that I have seen a review at 88% or 87%, but I couldn't find it yet.

Here let me help you:

"Lets try this.... open your web browser....type in www.google.com...type in xigmatek psu on search field. Oh and click enter."

Anyway.....
can you please tell us how inaccurate about techpowerup's review regarding the 850w at 85.1% efficiency now? Or you still trying to steer away?

I never said anything about techpowerup's review all I did was illuminate the one erronously identified unit (the 850w model at techpowerup) you were basing your unsubstantiated claim on. So steer away.

[Oklahoma Wolf]

Anyway, what do you think about techpowerup's set up?

I think load testers based on resistor banks are inherently difficult to nail down an accurate efficiency figure due to the simple fact that power resistors have loose tolerances that almost always throw off the final result.

It can be done, but it's a lot harder than when using an ATE or electronic loads like a Chroma that are by nature far more accurate instruments.

88% is impossible for this CWT platform. Period. It's incredibly difficult to get that kind of efficiency in a computer SMPS, and more so to do it at a price point people would pay for it. I know the platform and I know the design... it's very good, but it can't do magic.

[jonnyGURU]

poohball... quit tipping at windmills.

Nobody challenged techpowerup's methodology. The only thing being challenged are YOUR CLAIMS. I do not doubt they measured 85.1% efficiency at A load. YOUR CLAIM was that the PSU was 85 to 88% efficient and then refused to show proof as to where 88% efficiency was ever achieved, never mind anything over 85.1%. ANYTHING.

You're not going to find this unit doing 88% efficiency, even with 230V input. Quit arguing the matter until you can find someone that has actually measured those kind of numbers with the unit.

[AriciU]

Lets try this.... open your web browser....type in www.google.com...type in xigmatek psu on search field. Oh and click enter.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j309/skkane/retard2-2.jpg

[metro.cl]

So the PSU is good, average or bad? no one says this, maybe for you PSU experts is not perfect or great but compare it to other PSU at the same price range maybe this could help the guy who started this thread

[tbone8ty]

yeah its still a new psu brand but im sure some one will review it soon.

they do make good heatsink coolers so im sure it cant be that bad.

[Oklahoma Wolf]

So the PSU is good, average or bad? no one says this, maybe for you PSU experts is not perfect or great but compare it to other PSU at the same price range maybe this could help the guy who started this thread

I don't know - I don't have one to evaluate. If they're rated and built like their cousins in the Corsair TX750 and VX550, they're excellent. If they're overrated like the ones Hiper is using, they're very good but overrated.

But I can tell you it won't be average or bad :p:

[poohball]

so...Xigmatek PSU 850w 85.1% eff, anyone challenging?

[metro.cl]

I don't know - I don't have one to evaluate. If they're rated and built like their cousins in the Corsair TX750 and VX550, they're excellent. If they're overrated like the ones Hiper is using, they're very good but overrated.

But I can tell you it won't be average or bad :p:

Thks for the info from what i know the PSU are designed and made in taiwan, not sure if that helps.

I was offered one for review but testing this at high level to see what it really has is hard as i dont have all the equipment for it.

[SparkyJJO]

so...Xigmatek PSU 850w 85.1% eff, anyone challenging?

Geez man give it a break.

85% efficient at that ONE particular load perhaps, BUT it is guaranteed not 85% efficient through the whole range, that just won't happen.

End of story.

[Polizei]

so...Xigmatek PSU 850w 85.1% eff, anyone challenging?

85.1% efficient at 320w load. It is not 85.1% at say, 450w, 612w, 200w, or anything else. Its max efficiency may be 85.1%, but only at 320w. That really doesnt mean anything considering no one builds a computer to load a power supply to its most efficient point.

[poohball]

85.1% efficient at 320w load. It is not 85.1% at say, 450w, 612w, 200w, or anything else. Its max efficiency may be 85.1%, but only at 320w. That really doesnt mean anything considering no one builds a computer to load a power supply to its most efficient point.

then let me rephase my question, those so called name brand efficiency, is it base on the same thing? which means it won't be at claiming eff at other range. IF yes, then whats the point?

[[Spectre]]

then let me rephase my question, those so called name brand efficiency, is it base on the same thing? which means it won't be at claiming eff at other range. IF yes, then whats the point?

Dude just give it a rest you were wrong. Stop trying to wiggle out, just move on all you are doing is hurting your cause.

[poohball]

;2783247']Dude just give it a rest you were wrong. Stop trying to wiggle out, just move on all you are doing is hurting your cause.

I am not wiggle out, I admit I thought I saw the review was for 650w but it is 850w, and you claimed their 850 w review is not accurate. So I am asking youw the detail and how did you arrive to that conclusion.

Are you afraid to answer that question? If whatever you said should be right on all cases, then why not answering that to confirm?
They only reason I can think of is whatever you claimed up there is just some BS that you try to dis this review. Which we will find out how creditable you are.

[[Spectre]]

I am not wiggle out, I admit I thought I saw the review was for 650w but it is 850w, and you claimed their 850 w review is not accurate. So I am asking youw the detail and how did you arrive to that conclusion.

I didn't say anything about their measurement being inaccurate. Other people may expound upon their beliefs as they wish but I didn't say it was inaccurate, or accurate. Read what is written not what you want to believe.

Are you afraid to answer that question? If whatever you said should be right on all cases, then why not answering that to confirm?
They only reason I can think of is whatever you claimed up there is just some BS that you try to dis this review. Which we will find out how creditable you are.

I didn't say anything about their measurement being inaccurate. Other people may expound upon their beliefs as they wish but I didn't say it was inaccurate, or accurate. Read what is written not what you want to believe.

You were and still are wrong.

Just get over being wrong and move on.

[jonnyGURU]

poohball: What is your first language? Not english right? Because your reading comprehension is for the lose.

Nobody challenged Techreports findings. What's been challenged is the 88% efficiency claim, or any claim that the PSU is more than, let's say, 85.1% efficient. Tech Report found the unit to be 85.1% efficient at it's best and at only one particular load. How is that challenging their review? You said that there were several reviews that supported Xigmatek's claim that the PSU was typically 85.1 to 88% efficient and the only "proof" you've come up with is one review that shows a different Xigmatek unit as being UP TO 85.1% efficient. Are you really wanting to drag this out?

[AriciU]

Geez man give it a break.

85% efficient at that ONE particular load perhaps, BUT it is guaranteed not 85% efficient through the whole range, that just won't happen.

End of story.

Nice signature :D I was trying to get that damn bug from my monitor :rofl: :rofl: :ROTF: :ROTF:

[[Spectre]]

So now that I went a dug it up here are your nails:

The unit the OP asked about is based on the CWT PSH650V which peaks at 84.28% per 80plus http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/ChannelWellTechnologies_PSH650V-D_650W_80PLUS_Report.pdf

And that is close to the values I have seen on the sample I have.

Techpowerup tested the 850w Xigmatek which is based on the CWT PSH850V.

The PSH850V peaks at ~84% per 80Plus http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/CWT_PSH850V_850W_Report.pdf

When I had a PSH850V mine peaked at 82.98% HOWEVER my load steps were different because it was being billed as a 1200w unit.

The actual Xigmatek entries are for the most part broken at 80Plus but their 750 unit peaks at 83.60% which is inline with the PSH series http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-MC751-REPORT.pdf

as seen here http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/CWT_PSH750V_750W_Report.pdf

Their 1000w?

84.71% http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-HC1001-REPORT.pdf

CWT 1000w its based on?

84.71%
http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/CWT_PUC1000V_1000W_Report.pdf

I guarantee you when 80plus gets those links fixed for the 850w and 650w you will find the 650w and 850w match the CWT entries very closely...with none hitting 88% and I kind of doubt any will hit 86%.

[jonnyGURU]

;2785615']
Techpowerup tested the 850w Xigmatek which is based on the CWT PSH850V.

The PSH850V peaks at ~84% per 80Plus http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/CWT_PSH850V_850W_Report.pdf

When I had a PSH850V mine peaked at 82.98% HOWEVER my load steps were different because it was being billed as a 1200w unit.

Right. And 80 Plus is in the U.S. testing with 115V input while W1zzard @ TechPowerUp is in Germany and testing with 230V input which certainly contribute to the 85.1% vs. 84% efficiency numbers.

But not 85%.... or 88%. ;)

[metro.cl]

;2785615']So now that I went a dug it up here are your nails:

The unit the OP asked about is based on the CWT PSH650V which peaks at 84.28% per 80plus http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/ChannelWellTechnologies_PSH650V-D_650W_80PLUS_Report.pdf

And that is close to the values I have seen on the sample I have.

Techpowerup tested the 850w Xigmatek which is based on the CWT PSH850V.

The PSH850V peaks at ~84% per 80Plus http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/CWT_PSH850V_850W_Report.pdf

When I had a PSH850V mine peaked at 82.98% HOWEVER my load steps were different because it was being billed as a 1200w unit.

The actual Xigmatek entries are for the most part broken at 80Plus but their 750 unit peaks at 83.60% which is inline with the PSH series http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-MC751-REPORT.pdf

as seen here http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/CWT_PSH750V_750W_Report.pdf

Their 1000w?

84.71% http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-HC1001-REPORT.pdf

CWT 1000w its based on?

84.71%
http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/CWT_PUC1000V_1000W_Report.pdf

I guarantee you when 80plus gets those links fixed for the 850w and 650w you will find the 650w and 850w match the CWT entries very closely...with none hitting 88% and I kind of doubt any will hit 86%.

Isnt all of that good?

[[Spectre]]

Isnt all of that good?

Not for Poohball's case.

[jonnyGURU]

Yeah. We're not saying the Xigmatek is bad or TechpowerUp's testing methodology is flawed. That's what poohball is trying to say we're saying. All we're saying is the 88% efficiency claim is... well.. a poo ball.

[metro.cl]

;2785985']Not for Poohball's case.

I know that he is wrong.

Yeah. We're not saying the Xigmatek is bad or TechpowerUp's testing methodology is flawed. That's what poohball is trying to say we're saying. All we're saying is the 88% efficiency claim is... well.. a poo ball.

What i dunno is how good it actually can be price is really tempting but maybe is not that good or i could find a similar PSU at a lower price.

[Tonucci]

CWT build, iirc similar to toughtpowers and corsair TX750W. Probably great, if no corners were cut.

[AriciU]

Here you go -> http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.aspx?i=3231&p=10

This unit barely peaks at 85% so NO, it's not 85% effective. End of thread :)

[poohball]

Here you go -> http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.aspx?i=3231&p=10

This unit barely peaks at 85% so NO, it's not 85% effective. End of thread :)

I see, so on par with Antec and TT? so what now?

I said it loud and clear I made mistake and I thought I saw the 650w. case close.

I came back and challenge that 2 dudes. When they make the conclusion on how inaccurate techpowerup report is, or how they shouldnt claim 85.1% eff, what were they verdict base on? And does those conclusion applys to other test site. Is it that hard to answer?
The only thing I see is 2 dudes tried to bash on something where it should applies to all test or all review to all model but they only point at Xigmatek.
Let see what you got?

[[Spectre]]

I came back and challenge that 2 dudes. When they make the conclusion on how inaccurate techpowerup report is, or how they shouldnt claim 85.1% eff, what were they verdict base on?
And does those conclusion applys to other test site. Is it that hard to answer?
The only thing I see is 2 dudes tried to bash on something where it should applies to all test or all review to all model but they only point at Xigmatek.
Let see what you got?

And here you go again spouting more poo poohball, I didn't ever say that techpowerup was wrong in that they managed to get 85.1% at one time, at one load step, at 230v. What I said was that the Xigmatek 650w and the 850w were not 85-88% efficient which is/was correct.

We never bashed Xigmatek we bashed YOUR INCORRECT claims. Get that right this time.

[jonnyGURU]

;2787881']And here you go again spouting more poo poohball, I didn't ever say that techpowerup was wrong in that they managed to get 85.1% at one time, at one load step, at 230v. What I said was that the Xigmatek 650w and the 850w were not 85-88% efficient which is/was correct.

We never bashed Xigmatek we bashed YOUR INCORRECT claims. Get that right this time.


Agreeing with Spectre here. You either can't comprehend anything we're saying or your just picking a fight that isn't there.

Do you know how power supplies work? Power supplies aren't just always a particular efficiency regardless of load. Power supply's efficiencies change depending on load. So to state that "techpowerup only obtained 85.1% efficiency at one particular load" is NOT challenging their results. It's challenging Xigmatek's claim of 85 to 88%.

I don't know how many times, how many different ways we can re-iterate this.

If the highest efficiency we've seen the Xigmatek tested at is 85.1%, which was done by a techpowerup review that we are not challenging, how does one obtain 88% efficiency?????

That's all we're talking about here.

[poohball]

;2787881']And here you go again spouting more poo poohball, I didn't ever say that techpowerup was wrong in that they managed to get 85.1% at one time, at one load step, at 230v. What I said was that the Xigmatek 650w and the 850w were not 85-88% efficient which is/was correct.
We never bashed Xigmatek we bashed YOUR INCORRECT claims. Get that right this time.

So here is what I will go ask techpowerup now.....
after reading your report, someone claimed you were only able to manage to get 85.1% at one time, at one load step, at 230v. and also 850W were not 85.1% efficient and you shouldn't publish it has 85.1% efficient.

IS that what you mean now? don't try to play the word game again.

[poohball]

Agreeing with Spectre here. You either can't comprehend anything we're saying or your just picking a fight that isn't there.

Do you know how power supplies work? Power supplies aren't just always a particular efficiency regardless of load. Power supply's efficiencies change depending on load. So to state that "techpowerup only obtained 85.1% efficiency at one particular load" is NOT challenging their results. It's challenging Xigmatek's claim of 85 to 88%.

I don't know how many times, how many different ways we can re-iterate this.

If the highest efficiency we've seen the Xigmatek tested at is 85.1%, which was done by a techpowerup review that we are not challenging, how does one obtain 88% efficiency?????

That's all we're talking about here.

not sure if xigmatek claims 85-88%, I was the one mentioined I saw the review somewhere. and I think you are the one that having reading comprehend problem?? I told you many times I thought I saw 88% on one review.

Why are you still trying to change subject?

If you disagree techpowerup review 850W as 85.1% efficient, please state why. Lets not waste time, straight to the point.

[yankee]

:horse:

Do I really need to say any more?

[[Spectre]]

So here is what I will go ask techpowerup now.....
after reading your report, someone claimed you were only able to manage to get 85.1% at one time, at one load step, at 230v. and also 850W were not 85.1% efficient and you shouldn't publish it has 85.1% efficient.

IS that what you mean now? don't try to play the word game again.

Do you speak English? Seriously.

[Omastar]

I was wrong. THIS is the thread of the millennium. jonny for mod. :)

[gundamit]

I was wrong. THIS is the thread of the millennium. jonny for mod. :) Or perhaps sainthood. He certainly has met the patience requirement. ;)

[jonnyGURU]

So here is what I will go ask techpowerup now.....
after reading your report, someone claimed you were only able to manage to get 85.1% at one time, at one load step, at 230v. and also 850W were not 85.1% efficient and you shouldn't publish it has 85.1% efficient.

IS that what you mean now? don't try to play the word game again.

They're doing a round up. If all of the PSU's are being submitted to the same load, then you would report the efficiency for all units at that load. There's nothing wrong with doing that. Why are you so determined to have one of us say something to discredit techpowerup? The only person we're trying to discredit here is you. ;)

not sure if xigmatek claims 85-88%, I was the one mentioined I saw the review somewhere.

Ah!! That's right. YOU'RE the one that started spreading the un-substantiated FUD. Not Xigmatek or techpowerup. I forgot.

Motion to ban.

Why are you still trying to change subject?

If you disagree techpowerup review 850W as 85.1% efficient, please state why. Lets not waste time, straight to the point.

I'm not trying to change the subject.

Here's the timeline:

You claimed the Xigmatek could do 85%-88% efficiency.

You couldn't provide proof of this claim.

You did provide proof that a different Xigmatek could do 85.1% efficiency for a particular reviewer.

Now you're trying to get us to say that this reviewer is wrong.

What????

Spectre and I agree that 85.1% is not unrealistic. It's a little higher than what Spectre and I have seen, but w1zzard is using 230V input while we're using 115V and when you have a higher input voltage you see better efficiency results. It's not uncommon for a PSU at different loads to give different efficiencies. This is a fact. That doesn't make reporting >> A << efficiency at a particular load a wrong thing to do. Manufacturers do it all day long. They'll take the highest efficiency their unit can product and market that as the efficiency of their unit, even though it's only at one particular load at a particular input voltage (usually the highest.)

If you want someone to find fault with techpowerup's testing methodology so you can carry out some sort of vengence on the for some God knows what reason, you really need to look somewhere else.

Motion to ban.

[poohball]

"You claimed the Xigmatek could do 85%-88% efficiency.

You couldn't provide proof of this claim.

You did provide proof that a different Xigmatek could do 85.1% efficiency for a particular reviewer.

Now you're trying to get us to say that this reviewer is wrong.

What????

Spectre and I agree that 85.1% is not unrealistic."

Woo finally....seems like Johnny is the only smart one here, the rest.........

Anyway, lets keep this going.
Since you guys claiming their report is not unrealistic, does that means is realistic? or you just want to make it sounds like so uncertain once again.
IF testing under 230V is a common practice then whats wrong with them using 230V? You just have to say that earlier because you want to mislead people and make them think that review is not accurate........... So whatever BS you gusy claimed up there was just.......BS.

[Tonucci]

Jesus

[jbartlett323]

i think this is the funniest thing i have read all day... i think you guys need to spell it out one letter per post... :D

[jonnyGURU]

Since you guys claiming their report is not unrealistic, does that means is realistic? or you just want to make it sounds like so uncertain once again.
IF testing under 230V is a common practice then whats wrong with them using 230V? You just have to say that earlier because you want to mislead people and make them think that review is not accurate........... So whatever BS you gusy claimed up there was just.......BS.

Ok.. finally...

It's as unrealistic as it is realistic. It's as unrealistic as my tests or even Spectre's tests. w1zzard, and me, and Spectre, and a number of other reviewers, use a static dummy load on PSU's to stress test PSU's. This puts PSU's in unrealistic conditions. But unrealistic conditions are the only way you're going to cause a PSU to fail prematurely. Just throwing a PSU in a rig and flipping the switch will tell us if the PSU works or not... now... how about 6 months from now? A year?

And by using a static dummy load is the only way you're going to know how much DC power the PSU is actually putting out, measure the AC input and calculate efficiency. Theoretically, you can measure all of the DC output of a PC while it runs, but this number isn't going to be a static number. You can't take this number and calculate efficiency with it.

If you're going to compare units against one another, then having the same load on all of the units is the best way to do this, and it allows the reviewer to report the efficiency of each unit at this same load, whatever that load may be.

The way to refine this is to show the efficiency at several different static loads. techpowerup provides voltage results, etc. for idle, load, SLI, etc. as well as his static loads, but he only provides an efficiency number based on ONE LOAD and that's the discerning difference. One can not assume that a PSU is going to be even 85.1% efficient if at one, higher than normal, static load it happens to be 85.1% efficient.

As for the 230V input: It's common in EU because in the EU, their mains are 230V. Here in the US, it's common for a reviewer to review at 115V because that's what the mains provide. There's no conspiracy theory and it's not techpowerup trying to squeeze out higher efficiency numbers. It's a matter of the reviewer using whatever juice is available to him.

[RADCOM]

you guys have gone round in so many circles I'm feeling Dizzy. On the other hand I feel like buying one of these and sending it to you Johnny so you can do some comprehensive tests on it....lol I hope your questions have been answered Mr Ball...... :D

[[Spectre]]

Anyway, lets keep this going.

Why are you a masochist?

Since you guys claiming their report is not unrealistic, does that means is realistic? or you just want to make it sounds like so uncertain once again.
IF testing under 230V is a common practice then whats wrong with them using 230V? You just have to say that earlier because you want to mislead people and make them think that review is not accurate........... So whatever BS you gusy claimed up there was just.......BS.

Do you speak English? If not I need to know what language you do understand so you will finally get it. If you do understand English then you are a troll and there is no point in trying to educate you.

[poohball]

Nice post.
very informative.

It's as unrealistic as it is realistic. It's as unrealistic as my tests or even Spectre's tests. w1zzard, and me, and Spectre, and a number of other reviewers, use a static dummy load on PSU's to stress test PSU's. This puts PSU's in unrealistic conditions. But unrealistic conditions are the only way you're going to cause a PSU to fail prematurely. Just throwing a PSU in a rig and flipping the switch will tell us if the PSU works or not... now... how about 6 months from now? A year?

You talking about durability? they have lifetime warranty, I am not worry about it.

And by using a static dummy load is the only way you're going to know how much DC power the PSU is actually putting out, measure the AC input and calculate efficiency. Theoretically, you can measure all of the DC output of a PC while it runs, but this number isn't going to be a static number. You can't take this number and calculate efficiency with it.

So...how does you and other reviewers here calculate efficiency?

If you're going to compare units against one another, then having the same load on all of the units is the best way to do this, and it allows the reviewer to report the efficiency of each unit at this same load, whatever that load may be.

isn't it When techpowerup doing their review, is all under 230V and same load?

The way to refine this is to show the efficiency at several different static loads. techpowerup provides voltage results, etc. for idle, load, SLI, etc. as well as his static loads, but he only provides an efficiency number based on ONE LOAD and that's the discerning difference. One can not assume that a PSU is going to be even 85.1% efficient if at one, higher than normal, static load it happens to be 85.1% efficient.

I don't know about this, even Anand tech is showing 1 efficiency number. Would you take a look at their review and give some comments?


As for the 230V input: It's common in EU because in the EU, their mains are 230V. Here in the US, it's common for a reviewer to review at 115V because that's what the mains provide. There's no conspiracy theory and it's not techpowerup trying to squeeze out higher efficiency numbers. It's a matter of the reviewer using whatever juice is available to him.

Yes, if all PSU were tested under 230V and Xigmatek still stands out, what does that means? it means under the same condition, Xigmatek performs better than those. If they testing Xigmatek at 230V but the other models at 110V then we have a argument but in this case...nope.
They only argument or assumtion you have left now will be......under 110V xigmatek will perfrom weak because of some mysterious reason which I doubt there will be any.

By the way, can you link you and your other reviewers website? I would like to see how they give the results.

[jonnyGURU]

You are asking me all questions I have already answered. Why 230V, what effect this would have on efficiency, why only showing efficiency at one load.... You're just rephrasing the questions. I'm not answering them again. I'm done here.

The only new element you've added is the comment about lifetime warranty. Ok if it has a lifetime warranty, but if it dies, does it kill other components that WON'T be covered? Do I want the downtime of having to pull my PSU and wait for a replacement? Regardless of the warranty, it's still a pain.

Now before you take all of that out of context (which you seem to love to do) I will say that I would not expect a Xigmatek to die any quicker than any other CWT built power supply. I was merely suggesting why it's prudent to review a PSU under worst case scenario as opposed to just throwing it into a PC and saying "yep, it turns on." If the unit is worth it's weight, it should hold up to "unrealistic" static load testing.

Nice meeting you, pooh. Tell your boss at Xigmatek I said hi. ;)

[[Spectre]]

So...how does you and other reviewers here calculate efficiency?

There is only one way to calculate efficiency, there are many variables that affect your accuracy and precision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy).


I don't know about this, even Anand tech is showing 1 efficiency number.

You didn't read the article then since right there it has an efficiency curve. To get a curve you need more than one data point.

By the way, can you link you and your other reviewers website? I would like to see how they give the results.

We give them the same way as everyone else who does efficiency curves as opposed to a single point.

BTW 80Plus has now corrected their links and the Xigmatek 650w is 84.28% efficient at peak:

http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-MC651-REPORT.pdf

That sure looks familiar from this post http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2785615&postcount=43


But here is the PSH650v again like I posted earlier.
http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/ChannelWellTechnologies_PSH650V-D_650W_80PLUS_Report.pdf

[poohball]

;2799328']There is only one way to calculate efficiency, there are many variables that affect your accuracy and precision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy).




You didn't read the article then since right there it has an efficiency curve. To get a curve you need more than one data point.



We give them the same way as everyone else who does efficiency curves as opposed to a single point.

BTW 80Plus has now corrected their links and the Xigmatek 650w is 84.28% efficient at peak:

http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-MC651-REPORT.pdf

That sure looks familiar from this post http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2785615&postcount=43


But here is the PSH650v again like I posted earlier.
http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/ChannelWellTechnologies_PSH650V-D_650W_80PLUS_Report.pdf

Can you say what you bottom line is? Good or Bad?

[[Spectre]]

Can you say what you bottom line is? Good or Bad?

Bottom line:

You were wrong and don't know when to quit when you are wrong.

[poohball]

You are asking me all questions I have already answered. Why 230V, what effect this would have on efficiency, why only showing efficiency at one load.... You're just rephrasing the questions. I'm not answering them again. I'm done here.

Actually you haven't.
If all units they compared were testing under 230V. and Xigmatek perfrom better, what's wrong with claming it is better? Unless the units that they compared were not tested at 230V, I don't see any unfair competition there.

I can only see one argument left and it will be.... "you don't know how well it will perform under 110V". That will only become a problem when for some reason Xigmatek perform worse than others under 110V.....which I doubt it will.

Now before you take all of that out of context (which you seem to love to do) I will say that I would not expect a Xigmatek to die any quicker than any other CWT built power supply. I was merely suggesting why it's prudent to review a PSU under worst case scenario as opposed to just throwing it into a PC and saying "yep, it turns on." If the unit is worth it's weight, it should hold up to "unrealistic" static load testing.

I am totally agree on the way you mentioned.
I just don't understand whats wrong with the result when they all tested in the same condition.....230V.....unless you assume 110V will affect Xigmatek's unit more than other brand that they tested.


Nice meeting you, pooh. Tell your boss at Xigmatek I said hi. ;)
nice try....

[poohball]

;2799369']Bottom line:

You were wrong and don't know when to quit when you are wrong.

......................Bottom line....anything else you have left to attack or challenge the results??

[[Spectre]]

......................Bottom line....anything else you have left to attack or challenge the results??

Don't really need to since you were wrong and you don't really have a grasp on what is going on as has been demonstrated repeatedly now.

[poohball]

;2799402']Don't really need to since you were wrong and you don't really have a grasp on what is going on as has been demonstrated repeatedly now.

is there a reason why you keep avoiding to answer ? Don't know what to answer? Afraid to answer?
So far most of your post were only troll or back to something that we already know was wrong like 10pages ago.

[SparkyJJO]

poohball, I don't get your problem. WHAT is the point you are trying to make?

[poohball]

poohball, I don't get your problem. WHAT is the point you are trying to make?

I don't really have problem, seems like Sceptre is the one having problem on backing up whatever he said. As we can see Johnny is the smart one here and we almost done.

[jonnyGURU]

Grrrrrrrrr............

ONE LAST TIME....

We are not faulting the Xigmatek.

We are not faulting thetechreport.

The only thing that's "wrong" is the claim you made of 88% efficiency.

[poohball]

Grrrrrrrrr............

ONE LAST TIME....

We are not faulting the Xigmatek.

We are not faulting thetechreport.

The only thing that's "wrong" is the claim you made of 88% efficiency.

Fine. this is getting old....

so....for $109.99 is it a good buy?

[[Spectre]]

is there a reason why you keep avoiding to answer ? Don't know what to answer? Afraid to answer?
So far most of your post were only troll or back to something that we already know was wrong like 10pages ago.

I haven't avoided anything, I answered all of your questions. Unfortunately you seem incapable of understanding the answer in English. So I ask you one last time. Do you speak English? If not what language do I need to give you the answer in so you do understand?

I don't really have problem, seems like Sceptre is the one having problem on backing up whatever he said. As we can see Johnny is the smart one here and we almost done.

Your incorrect position has been answered and backed up by me throughout this thread. Here is a recap for you:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2785615&postcount=43

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2787881&postcount=52

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2799328&postcount=69

[poohball]

;2801961']I haven't avoided anything, I answered all of your questions. Unfortunately you seem incapable of understanding the answer in English. So I ask you one last time. Do you speak English? If not what language do I need to give you the answer in so you do understand?



Your incorrect position has been answered and backed up by me throughout this thread. Here is a recap for you:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2785615&postcount=43

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2787881&postcount=52

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2799328&postcount=69


so you once again trying to avoid the answer again?
I already stated I made mistake long time ago...I don't know why you still want to go back and act like I didn't admit it....very funny. You have nothing else left to play with?

you still avoiding whats wrong with claiming xigmatek is better when all other models were testing under 230W. Are you trying to fool people make them think that only Xigmatek is under 230W thats why the result looks good?

[[Spectre]]

so you once again trying to avoid the answer again?
I already stated I made mistake long time ago...I don't know why you still want to go back and act like I didn't admit it....very funny. You have nothing else left to play with?

you still avoiding whats wrong with claiming xigmatek is better when all other models were testing under 230W. Are you trying to fool people make them think that only Xigmatek is under 230W thats why the result looks good?

Jon was right you either work for Xigmatek or are a troll. Either way the situation has been covered and you are at the least not able to understand the answer to your questions.

Matching one for one here are two more efficient units than the Xigmatek under the same conditions for all three units.

Xigmatek: http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-MC651-REPORT.pdf

SS-650HT doing better: http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/Seasonic_SS-650HT_650W_80PLUS_Report.pdf

SF-650 doing better: http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/SUPER-FLOWER_SF-650P14HE_650W_Report.pdf

You are wrong AGAIN, even by contiually changing your claims you are wrong. End of story.

[SparkyJJO]

Fine. this is getting old....

so....for $109.99 is it a good buy?

If it is as good as the toughpowers (which considering it is the same platform it should be) then yeah I'd see it as a good buy most likely.

[poohball]

;2802277']Jon was right you either work for Xigmatek or are a troll. Either way the situation has been covered and you are at the least not able to understand the answer to your questions.

Matching one for one here are two more efficient units than the Xigmatek under the same conditions for all three units.

Xigmatek: http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/NRP-MC651-REPORT.pdf

SS-650HT doing better: http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/Seasonic_SS-650HT_650W_80PLUS_Report.pdf

SF-650 doing better: http://www.80plus.org/manu/psu/documents/SUPER-FLOWER_SF-650P14HE_650W_Report.pdf

You are wrong AGAIN, even by contiually changing your claims you are wrong. End of story.

nice....once again trying to divert it instead of answering it. you still haven't provide an answer for whats wrong with the result if all were tested under the same condition.

[[Spectre]]

nice....once again trying to divert it instead of answering it. you still haven't provide an answer for whats wrong with the result if all were tested under the same condition.

You have got to be kidding me. You didn't even bother to read the links, did you? They were tested under the same loads. Xigmatek wasn't the best, its all right there for you to read. Since it is all there with Xigmatek not being the best as you continue to say.....you either can't understand English, or you lack the ability to understand what you are talking about.

[tommyshango]

why is anyone still trying to help this :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::b anana:?

[Yellowbeard]

seems more like some stupid trasher trying to trash it to me.
I think it is abundantly and painfully clear that we have had a bad start to this thread with the unnecessary insults considering that........


nd regarding their test setup, they only thing I can say is it looks great, I am not a technical guy at all. Btw, they are the site tested with the 85.1% eff on 850W and 80% on 1200W.

I've found it more rewarding to try to know what I am talking about if I challenge people in their area of expertise.

[Polizei]

I've found it more rewarding to try to know what I am talking about if I challenge people in their area of expertise.

Words of a wise pirate, right there.

[poohball]

;2804204']You have got to be kidding me. You didn't even bother to read the links, did you? They were tested under the same loads. Xigmatek wasn't the best, its all right there for you to read. Since it is all there with Xigmatek not being the best as you continue to say.....you either can't understand English, or you lack the ability to understand what you are talking about.

Oh I see now....there was nothing left for you to attack so now you have to switch it to another direction on posting other test? Very nice...still yet failed to answer why you even challenged when they were all tested under 230W.

[Yellowbeard]

Oh I see now....there was nothing left for you to attack so now you have to switch it to another direction on posting other test? Very nice...still yet failed to answer why you even challenged when they were all tested under 230W.

Seeing as how YOU instigated the attacks on the first page against JG, this has rapidly become the most inane and senseless thread I have read this week at least. You are the only person attacking people here. The people you are attacking are acknowledged experts in their field.

And, you seem to have some unhealthy love affair with Spectre, not Sceptre. Learn to read and spell when insulting or addressing people. When all else fails, cut n paste.

You have posted absolutely nothing remotely factual except for stating that you are not a technical person and that you quoted the spex for the wrong PSU. Is there some real point related to PSUs that you can make here or are you simply trying to salve your ego some?

[poohball]

I think it is abundantly and painfully clear that we have had a bad start to this thread with the unnecessary insults considering that........




I've found it more rewarding to try to know what I am talking about if I challenge people in their area of expertise.

If they are what they are...there is nothing I can do but calling it straight out.

In some cases is more rewarding....but in this cases no. You see the horse:banana::banana::banana::banana: miles away where their original "opinions" were nothing but trash that they can't even back up. I was gonna dig up more of their BS and see what can I stir up and play with. Johnny is the smart one that smells it coming, but yet.....the other were just......dull. keeps on switching, switching, and switching.

[STEvil]

Poohball, drop it.. you've lost.

[poohball]

Seeing as how YOU instigated the attacks on the first page against JG, this has rapidly become the most inane and senseless thread I have read this week at least. You are the only person attacking people here. The people you are attacking are acknowledged experts in their field.

And, you seem to have some unhealthy love affair with Spectre, not Sceptre. Learn to read and spell when insulting or addressing people. When all else fails, cut n paste.

You have posted absolutely nothing remotely factual except for stating that you are not a technical person and that you quoted the spex for the wrong PSU. Is there some real point related to PSUs that you can make here or are you simply trying to salve your ego some?

woo poor thing...did you missed the boat?

which PSU you talking about?
650W I was asking them about the Anand tech review.
850W I was asking them in what way they want to challenge the techpowerup review.

Are you gonna chime in to see how good your Corsair PSU is?

[jonnyGURU]

This is no way for a Xigmatek rep to act.

[Yellowbeard]

LOL...yer cute :rofl:

woo poor thing...did you missed the boat?

which PSU you talking about?
650W I was asking them about the Anand tech review.
850W I was asking them in what way they want to challenge the techpowerup review.

Are you gonna chime in to see how good your Corsair PSU is?Nah, no need, I know how good all 7 of them are.

I have a great idea. Let's let the tech Power Up guys speak for themselves. They can discuss this on an adult, professional, and technical level with JG and SPECTRE themselves if they feel some need to defend their work.

Here's another great idea too, work on your reading comprehension skills and start over. Read your initial insults and insubstantial claims while focusing on post # 11:
Really? Try harder. The techpowerup article is a not the PSU asked about and is a single review (not all reviews) at a single load step not a range of loads. Now if you take the BS approach of Xigmatek PSU's in general it is even worse for your assertion since the 1200w at techpowerup hit only 80.1% at one load step not a range of lads.
That statement addresses the PSU maker and is not a challenge to the review or the reviewer.

Who or what exactly are you trying to defend here? What point or points can YOU make? You have talked in such circles that I will confess to being at a loss. But, I'm not as smart as JG or SPECTRE.

[STEvil]

I dont think he understands that peak efficiency is not constant across the load range of the PSU.

This is your second and final warning to drop the issue poohball.

[poohball]

Nah, no need, I know how good all 7 of them are.

Really?? can you define how good? I just got your sales out number.
can you define what do you mean by how good? I will compare it
to your sales out number and see how good they are.



I have a great idea. Let's let the tech Power Up guys speak for themselves. They can discuss this on an adult, professional, and technical level with JG and SPECTRE themselves if they feel some need to defend their work.

Thats they idea I had. too bad Sceptre won't give out too much info. Now you know where the special love came from.

Here's another great idea too, work on your reading comprehension skills and start over. Read your initial insults and insubstantial claims while focusing on post # 11:
That statement addresses the PSU maker and is not a challenge to the review or the reviewer.

Really?? unless I am wrong...they were all over about how techpower test it. make it sound so unfair for the other brand.

Who or what exactly are you trying to defend here? What point or points can YOU make? You have talked in such circles that I will confess to being at a loss. But, I'm not as smart as JG or SPECTRE.

I don't know.. what do you think? I see questions, I go for it.

[STEvil]

Nobody attacked Tech Powerup or anyone else. You are wrong. You've probably just earned a vacation at the least as well.

[Movieman]

Closed..
I have one suggestion to make after reading 85.1% of this thread:
Poohball: Get some glasses or take a reading comprehension course.
'nuff on that subject!