Printable View
What's happening with this PSU? I saw that the 400CX was discontinued and spotted the 430CX on Newegg.
Who's the OEM?
What's with not having any 80 PLUS certification?
Where is it on Corsair's website?
What's with having worse specs than the 400CX?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 400CX
Quote:
Originally Posted by 430CX
Not having 80 PLUS cert., to me, would say, "don't buy this power supply because our efficiency claims are all fiction."
On a side-note, I'm not trying to be insulting here or anything. However, as a professional and a consumer, I don't see how or why the 430CX fits into the market. As part of that, if a power supply company can't be assed to send a sample to Ecos and post the result, then I can't be assed to even consider buying it. The 400CX is, in most every way, a superior product to its successor. The 400CX got most of its sales at $30AR and entirely dominated that market segment. You simply couldn't find another 350-400W unit that matched the price or performance.
To be honest, I don't expect a response. I may come across as rude, but I do care about Corsair at least as a manufacturer of power supplies.
Just another one of those times where reading the exact specifications will save you in the end. Overall minimum power needs are reaching a point where smaller PSUs just aren't going to cut it. In this case, however, corsair has opted to relocated a portion of the electrical distribution to the +5Vsb rail, bringing its total up to 15Watts.
Just a matter of opinion, but I'd never settle with anything less than about 550Watts when building a machine. And as more powerful equipment go into the build, so does my requirement for higher capacity PSUs. Hopefully Yellowbeard might be able to shed some light on this situation though. Especially to the rest of us Corsair users who use their PSUs exclusively.
However, they likewise dropped current available on the +5V rails. I can understand the how, but I don't see how a product like the new 430CX adds value to the Corsair brand.Quote:
Originally Posted by aythrea
I find that the power supply used should reflect the system as well as a glance at final specifications. Just because I'm building a Core i5 (700) or Core i7 doesn't mean that it has to be paired with a GTX 480. I tend to aim roughly for my client's needs. For example, a Phenom II X4 & HD4850 paired with a 650TX or a Core i5 & HD4650 paired with an Antec EA380.Quote:
Just a matter of opinion, but I'd never settle with anything less than about 550Watts when building a machine. And as more powerful equipment go into the build, so does my requirement for higher capacity PSUs. Hopefully Yellowbeard might be able to shed some light on this situation though. Especially to the rest of us Corsair users who use their PSUs exclusively.
I don't use Corsair exclusively, though I do hold a strong preference for Seasonic-built power supplies (which is why I especially like the Corsair 650TX, 400CX, & Antec EA-D's)
Aiming for needs is great. But also remember that you should consider realistic future expansion needs. Had to rephrase that. I say this because consumers tend to forget there is a maximum output to a powersupply, and usually it's the last to be upgraded. And all of a sudden the PC won't boot with 9 harddrives, 4 dvds... a billion cold cathodes... Excuse the sarcasm. Pop goes the capacitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
In short,and in spite of the subtle spec changes, the 430 is the equal or better of the 400 in every way. We did not take a step backwards here. And, obviously we are aiming at a VERY low price point here while still selling a product we will proudly put our name on.
Subtle? Hardly. The biggest one and the most obvious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellowbeard
Efficiency ratings...
400CX: Claimed 80+% efficient, certified 80 PLUS
430CX: Claimed 80+% efficient, uncertified ("Up to 80% energy efficiency...")
I really don't mean this as offense to any customer service guys: I'm simply stating that it's a bad replacement for the tech-savvy. Those who simply consider budget will buy no-name RAM, an Asrock or ECS board, and the cheapest CPU they can find. Then they'll buy an old low-end graphics card and the cheapest hard drive and probably bundle it all together with a $40 store-brand chassis + PSU. For those who consider technology and are willing to fork over a few more quid, they'll buy a low-end board (perhaps MSI or a better-reviewed Asrock), no-name RAM, and the cheapest modern processor they can find. Then they'll buy an old mid-range graphics card and a cheap but decent hrd drive and bundle it all together with a $80 Antec chassis + PSU.
We did not take the time and processes to submit the 430CX for 80+ testing. Our marketing/tech specifications reflect this. We certainly aren't going to make claims we cannot support with testing and documentation. However, the 2 units are closer in actual performance than you'd think based on your 2 statements above. The uproar over the bottom most PSU in our lineup is actually confusing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
If anyone took the time to get 2 of these units without labels on them and tested them head to head, they would find that the differences are miniscule. For the price, the 430 is still an outstanding PSU.
(Sorry for the late post)
If OklahomaWolf (of JonnyGuru, of course) gets his hands on one of these and confirms what you're saying, then I'll believe the 430CX is an equal PSU (at least) to the older 400CX. According to what you just said, the new CX units aren't 80+% efficient at 20%/50%/100% loads. From business terms, you have competing units that are 80 PLUS certified (80 PLUS Bronze, in fact) at similar prices. After rebate, there are few $30 units that will be competitive, though not everyone will receive the rebate so I'd still consider these $50 units and they would still need to compete reasonably well at that price point before I take a gamble on mail-in rebates.
On a side-note, as a more technical user, I realize that grabbing a <80% efficient power supply when there are 80 PLUS (inc. Bronze) units for $5 more is a poor move. If my system draws 150W at load 24/7/365, an 82% efficient unit would draw 182.9W from the wall while even an 80% efficient unit would draw 187.5W. 4.6Wh doesn't seem like much, but after a year that's an extra 40.3 kWh or about $4-8 electricity. If the PC's run for 2 years or 3 or 4, that adds up.
Just to be clear, I did not make any statments about specific efficiencies or testing that we may have done internally. I'm simply saying we did not submit for and will not market as 80+ certified. This does not mean the units won't do it. It's still a bit odd to me that there is so much uproar over the bottom PSU in our lineup.
~400wQuote:
Originally Posted by Yellowbeard
Nice low-end/low-midrange PC wattage.
Corsair:
Brand known for high performance enthusiast memory, recently PSU's and USB memory, and even more recently cases, SSD's, and coolers.
Looking at lineup and past history, the Corsair name is typically associated with high quality products. For most people, they feel that a Corsair product is of higher quality or value than an identical product of competition. Sometimes selling price reflects this.
Most people worry about energy efficiency. Some people just pick a PSU on it's 80 Plus certification and price range. In my opinion, marketing a 430w PSU without 80 Plus certification in this market is daring at least. Even I wouldn't buy a PSU I know is not guaranteed to do most of it's delivery range to rated spec @ 80% or higher.
2 year warranty - lets say a potential buyer of the PC I'm putting this in buys this PC. After two and a half years the PSU dies. Sorta wish I had that CX400's warranty right about now.
Misleading to newegg buyers:
Attachment 108899
Yate Loon D12SH-12 - is that REALLY a ball bearing fan in there? S indicates sleeve bearing, B (as in D12BH-12) indicates ball.
Yes, I know the website says differently. Still, why didn't newegg correct the error yet?
People just expect more from an item under the Corsair name, that's all.