Any real harm in going overboard with the PSU?

[capt_cope]

To cut a long story short I built up a beast of a computer for work a while back, and used the maxrevo 1350w psu. Now they want "moderate" versions of what I built, but with the same mobo, cpu, and psu. These builds do not need a 1k+ psu, but will it hurt anything or just be inefficient?
It's not a fight I want to start unless it's going to create problems down the road. For reference, my suggestion to use a socket 1155 build instead sticking with LGA2011 was killed since they want to keep these as close as possible to the original for helpdesk. These builds will be used for word processing and web development 90% of the time.

 

[Slava]

You could go with, but not needed. Unless you got 2 or 3 video cards in it lol

 

[Tsumi]

The only thing you would be doing is hurting your wallet, as long as you buy a quality one.

 

[xblindvisionx]

It won't nessarily hurt anything, but it is inefficient. Also, it costs more.

 

[tankman1989]

If you do go with bigger, get modular so there are less cables if not needed.

 

[K1tty]

Ouch, for word processing and web development 90% of the time a 2011 build?
If they're interested I have a bridge for sale somewhere

 

[qbanb8582]

It won't hurt anything at all. The power is what it can supply not what its using all the time.

The only thing that could be an issue is efficiency which can vary with different PSUs.

I had an Athlon X2 system with one GTX 260 with a 850w PSU cuz my 500w died.

 

[JoeBob]

I wish my workplace flogged LGA2011 builds at me for no good reason whatsoever. But no, I'm stuck with a lousy old Athlon X2 4400+ hehe.

 

[Jorona]

Frankly, going overboard with a PSU can be beneficial. Running a PSU at 50% is generally the sweet spot for efficency. So you'll save some electricity. I dunno how long it'll take to make back the initial invest ment, but headroom is always nice.

 

[Tsumi]

Frankly, going overboard with a PSU can be beneficial. Running a PSU at 50% is generally the sweet spot for efficency. So you'll save some electricity. I dunno how long it'll take to make back the initial invest ment, but headroom is always nice.

Uh, no. Targeting 50% max load for best efficiency is a complete myth and has already been debunked. Do not ever follow advice like this.

 

[Jorona]

Uh, no. Targeting 50% max load for best efficiency is a complete myth and has already been debunked. Do not ever follow advice like this.

Thus why nearly every load test on current PSUs has them acheiving their highest efficency at or around 50%. I never said anything about targeting your max load, you'd then generally be under that and on the down slope of efficency again. I simply stated that at 50% is generally the best effiency.

 

[drlawyer]

The old addage that pre-dates the electronic age is "You can never have too much power. Only not enough." I used to tell people this all the time when I sold audio equipment.

To echo what others have said here, the only potential downside to having "too much" power supply is the investment cost in buying one. However, that may be hard to accurately measure.

Consider this: Your components will not draw more power than they need. So, even if you have a 15,000 W power supply, your CPU is only going to pull what it would pull if you had an 800 W. If your CPU ever needs power, but can't get it, that will put a strain on it. To use an imperfect analogy, imagine when you have a power lull in your home, and all the lights dim. You instinctively know that your HVAC, TV, fridge and every other component in your house just groaned. And you are right.

So, having too little power - or, to put it another way, just enough - is more likely to put unnecessary strain on your system's components when you are operating it at load. Most of all, running that PSU at full load, only to have it fall short, will definitely shorten the life of that.

So paying a little more to have more headroom on your PSU may help ensure that you don't have to replace it - or your CPU, video cards, or other components - sooner than you would otherwise want to. That may end up saving you some money in the longer run.

Moving up a power setting or two won't set you back that much. For comparison's sake (apples to apples), look at the retail price of the Corsair HX-750 versus the HX-1050 or even HX-1200. The 750W will run you about $180, while the 1050W runs about $240. Yeah, on the one hand, that's 33% more. On the other, hand, what component in your system costs less than $60 if you have to replace it? Making the jump to the 1200 will set you back $340. That's a lot for a power supply. On the other hand, it's cheaper than most CPUs.

Considering that the PSU is going to directly affect how everything in your system functions (and flexible your system is in the future), I would say that any computer builder should look to splurge there first.

General advice (aka "TL/DR version") Do your research, definitely get modular, and don't skip on the PSU. Personally, I'm a Corsair fan - hard to wrong there.

 

[Topweasel]

Uh, no. Targeting 50% max load for best efficiency is a complete myth and has already been debunked. Do not ever follow advice like this.

Been debunked? I mean I literally just read a review that exact recommendation was " figure out the power draw of everything at load and double up on it". This was a sight that displayed great knowledge it power supplies, being able to understand down to the thermal temperature limitations of each component. Not saying he is right, or you are wrong. But I just wonder if something is that much of a "Myth" and has already been "debunked". How this reviewer and pretty much everyone else has shown that PSU's hit max efficiency at around a 50% draw.

Now if you are looking at it from another direction in that it might not be as financially feasible to regain money lost in purchasing a bigger power supply, in saved electricity. Then you may have a point. But then again I would also want to know what the failure rate is for regularly running a power-supply at 90% load in comparison to 50%. Not to mention dealing with less heat and less fan spinning for the power supply. Along that same line why is there this big shift toward 80plus ratings, if there wasn't just a general goal of not wanting to literally waste electricity. I mean in the end a 900W with 75% efficiency would probably be cheaper then a 700W Silver or Gold and just as likely to not make that money back.

COOLMAX CUG-950B at $114 is 712W at 75% efficiency. FSP Group AURUM GOLD 700W at $110 is 637W at ~90% effieciency. So really if sustained 700W is the goal, you would have to get a RS800-80GAD3-US 800W at $150. Yet even people who understand power loads and suggest PSU's that power output are closer to the actual requirements, still end up targeting silver and gold PSU's. (all of these are just using Newegg, obviously for any of the parts you can find them cheaper)

So again if you are talking about one of the most important components of an important system you are building, wouldn't make sense to target the most power friendly and least amount of stress you can put on it. For PSU's specially that seems to be 50% on high efficiency units.

 

[Jorona]

Coolmax make JUNK PSUs. Diablotek, Gearmax, Topower, just terrible supplies. Avoid them like the plague.

 

[Tsumi]

Been debunked? I mean I literally just read a review that exact recommendation was " figure out the power draw of everything at load and double up on it". This was a sight that displayed great knowledge it power supplies, being able to understand down to the thermal temperature limitations of each component. Not saying he is right, or you are wrong. But I just wonder if something is that much of a "Myth" and has already been "debunked". How this reviewer and pretty much everyone else has shown that PSU's hit max efficiency at around a 50% draw.

Now if you are looking at it from another direction in that it might not be as financially feasible to regain money lost in purchasing a bigger power supply, in saved electricity. Then you may have a point. But then again I would also want to know what the failure rate is for regularly running a power-supply at 90% load in comparison to 50%. Not to mention dealing with less heat and less fan spinning for the power supply. Along that same line why is there this big shift toward 80plus ratings, if there wasn't just a general goal of not wanting to literally waste electricity. I mean in the end a 900W with 75% efficiency would probably be cheaper then a 700W Silver or Gold and just as likely to not make that money back.

COOLMAX CUG-950B at $114 is 712W at 75% efficiency. FSP Group AURUM GOLD 700W at $110 is 637W at ~90% effieciency. So really if sustained 700W is the goal, you would have to get a RS800-80GAD3-US 800W at $150. Yet even people who understand power loads and suggest PSU's that power output are closer to the actual requirements, still end up targeting silver and gold PSU's. (all of these are just using Newegg, obviously for any of the parts you can find them cheaper)

So again if you are talking about one of the most important components of an important system you are building, wouldn't make sense to target the most power friendly and least amount of stress you can put on it. For PSU's specially that seems to be 50% on high efficiency units.

It's debunked because for general computing usage, you're operating nowhere near 100% of your computer's max loads.

Instead of repeating myself, I will give you this link: 50% load myth

Coolmax sucks. Using it in your example shows your general lack of knowledge about power supplies.

People target silver, gold, and platinum power supplies because they're also usually the premium quality units. Not due to efficiency, but due to quality of components used inside, which also generally lead to better efficiency.

I barely understood half of your post. Are you saying that efficiency has something to do with the maximum power it can put out? It does not.

You can have too much power supply. It sets it back further on the efficiency curve. Power supplies are notoriously inefficient below 20% load (dropping to 75% or less efficiency). If you overcompensate way too much, then that's where you will be sitting.

It's not about buying more watts. It's about buying better quality.

 

[E4g1e]

It's debunked because for general computing usage, you're operating nowhere near 100% of your computer's max loads.

Instead of repeating myself, I will give you this link: 50% load myth

Coolmax sucks. Using it in your example shows your general lack of knowledge about power supplies.

People target silver, gold, and platinum power supplies because they're also usually the premium quality units. Not due to efficiency, but due to quality of components used inside, which also generally lead to better efficiency.

I barely understood half of your post. Are you saying that efficiency has something to do with the maximum power it can put out? It does not.

You can have too much power supply. It sets it back further on the efficiency curve. Power supplies are notoriously inefficient below 20% load (dropping to 75% or less efficiency). If you overcompensate way too much, then that's where you will be sitting.

It's not about buying more watts. It's about buying better quality.

Agreed. Very, very few systems have such an extremely wide power consumption differential between idle and full application (as opposed to stress testing) load that a PSU will operate at anywhere close to its full capacity during gaming yet less than 20% of full capacity at idle (although those who run three or four GPUs in the same PC might see such extreme power differentials).

 

[E4g1e]

Been debunked? I mean I literally just read a review that exact recommendation was " figure out the power draw of everything at load and double up on it". This was a sight that displayed great knowledge it power supplies, being able to understand down to the thermal temperature limitations of each component. Not saying he is right, or you are wrong. But I just wonder if something is that much of a "Myth" and has already been "debunked". How this reviewer and pretty much everyone else has shown that PSU's hit max efficiency at around a 50% draw.

It's been debunked due to the usage patterns. If you target the maximum operating load to utilize only 50 percent of a PSU's maximum continuous capacity, you will almost always end up with a system that utilizes much less than 20 percent of the maximum continuous capacity of that same PSU when that system is at idle. That will kill the average efficiency rating of that entire PC, which will draw quite a bit more electricity from the wall than it otherwise would have had that exact same PC is equipped with a PSU that's a closer match to its maximum continuous capabilities to begin with.

And what you did state was true only during those old times when CPUs and GPUs ran at their full speed and voltage at all times, with no power-saving or automatic downclocking support at all whatsoever. But today's CPUs and GPUs have a slew of power-saving features that are enabled by default (or in a few cases permanently enabled with no way at all whatsoever to disable them). That is, modern PCs have a much wider differential between idle power draw and load power draw than those old PCs ever did.

 

[Topweasel]

It's been debunked due to the usage patterns. If you target the maximum operating load to utilize only 50 percent of a PSU's maximum continuous capacity, you will almost always end up with a system that utilizes much less than 20 percent of the maximum continuous capacity of that same PSU when that system is at idle. That will kill the average efficiency rating of that entire PC, which will draw quite a bit more electricity from the wall than it otherwise would have had that exact same PC is equipped with a PSU that's a closer match to its maximum continuous capabilities to begin with.

And what you did state was true only during those old times when CPUs and GPUs ran at their full speed and voltage at all times, with no power-saving or automatic downclocking support at all whatsoever. But today's CPUs and GPUs have a slew of power-saving features that are enabled by default (or in a few cases permanently enabled with no way at all whatsoever to disable them). That is, modern PCs have a much wider differential between idle power draw and load power draw than those old PCs ever did.

Even in these cases there are advantages. Cooler Master Silent Pro Hybrid's are completely silent at 20% and below power levels. While it might be a bit harder to get a complete understanding of most productivity loads, a games power draw should be pretty easy to monitor through a kill a watt. If you are playing multiple hours and the draw on the PSU is would be at 90% then I would still suggest a large PSU.

 

[E4g1e]

Even in these cases there are advantages. Cooler Master Silent Pro Hybrid's are completely silent at 20% and below power levels. While it might be a bit harder to get a complete understanding of most productivity loads, a games power draw should be pretty easy to monitor through a kill a watt. If you are playing multiple hours and the draw on the PSU is would be at 90% then I would still suggest a large PSU.

The fan operation also depends on the PSU's design. Many PSUs run their fan at full speed regardless of load, thus degrading the already reduced efficiency. I have also seen the rare PSU whose power consumption from the wall increases dramatically when the load drops below 20 percent (that is, the power draw from the wall is substantially higher at 15% load than at 20% load).

By the way, the Silent Pro Hybrid isn't all that good of a PSU (quality-wise), especially for its relatively high price.

 

[Tsumi]

Even in these cases there are advantages. Cooler Master Silent Pro Hybrid's are completely silent at 20% and below power levels. While it might be a bit harder to get a complete understanding of most productivity loads, a games power draw should be pretty easy to monitor through a kill a watt. If you are playing multiple hours and the draw on the PSU is would be at 90% then I would still suggest a large PSU.

...

Most of those hybrid fan controllers are actually temperature dependent rather than load dependent, especially the good ones like on the Seasonic X series. The load percentage at which they spin up is just a rough estimate, they can spin up at higher or lower loads depending on the internal temperature of the PSU.

I have also found that most quality PSUs, even if the fan is never shut off, they spin slow enough that there is no noise whatsoever.

The only time I can ever recommend a larger than normal power supply is if the person knows they'll be building dedicated folding rigs or whatever, things like that. People like that generally don't ever come here because they already know what they're doing. If they don't, they're more likely to have detailed their posts with the exact plan. That is why advice given here should be for the general masses unless the person makes it clear in their post that what they're doing on their computer would place constant high loads.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

Sometimes it is easier to follow the age old rules:

Rule # 1: The boss is always right.

Rule # 2: If the boss is ever wrong, refer to Rule # 1.

You are correct in assuming that 1350W PSUs are overkill for these builds. You are also correct in assuming that the 1155-based builds would offer better value, especially given the usage scenario you outlined. Your superior(s) simply do not understand this. Whether or not it is worth your time and effort to argue the point with them is another matter.

Since they are obviously so interested in over-spending, why not try and see if they'll buy you an LGA2011 rig to take home? You could try saying that you need it to monitor their network for issues when you're not at work

 

[Topweasel]

The fan operation also depends on the PSU's design. Many PSUs run their fan at full speed regardless of load, thus degrading the already reduced efficiency. I have also seen the rare PSU whose power consumption from the wall increases dramatically when the load drops below 20 percent (that is, the power draw from the wall is substantially higher at 15% load than at 20% load).

By the way, the Silent Pro Hybrid isn't all that good of a PSU (quality-wise), especially for its relatively high price.

Everything I have read on it has been pretty good, even the sites (really only one) that gave it below a 9 rating, did so based on it on few things I didn't think were fare per the intended target. For example the fact that it waits till it substantially hotter then other PSU's before starting up the fan, but that is why they used parts rated for 10-15 Celcius higher thermal limits then most, so in worse case scenario's it still has to get substantially close to 20-25% power draw prior to spinning up.

Probably wouldn't have gotten it and gone Sceasonic or HPC but it fit a particular worry for me. But from everything I find its still much better then the original Silent Pro, which seemed to be more hit or miss.

Mainly brought it up because its an example of something that didn't fit the PSU recommendations, a feature or functionality that basically requires you to actually try to get the idle draw to below a % of max load.