Beware of Exploding Gigabyte PSU's being Dumped by Newegg in Forced Bundles

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,386
Got an email from Newegg about it.



To be honest I haven't even looked at it since I got it with my 3090, I guess I should see what the serial number is.

Newegg trying to step up? Or trying to cover their asses?
The latter id say 🤣

Gigabyte just doesn't get it. No one wants these power supplies. The replacements are just as worthless as the originals. Gigabyte and shitty power supplies will forever be ingrained in the memory of anyone that's read these articles. The longer it drags on the larger the pool becomes.
 

ZodaEX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
4,122
Newegg trying to step up? Or trying to cover their asses?
The latter id say 🤣

Gigabyte just doesn't get it. No one wants these power supplies. The replacements are just as worthless as the originals. Gigabyte and shitty power supplies will forever be ingrained in the memory of anyone that's read these articles. The longer it drags on the larger the pool becomes.

Everything Gigabyte makes is shit. I'm surprised that some folks on the [H]ard didn't catch on to this after so many years of faulty products.
 

Schro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
7,803
That seems rather strange....as it isnt much of a review if you are afraid to say anything bad about the unit. At that point you more or less doing a sponsored press release for the company. I personally would rather know if my PSU can blow up, versus a company having hurt feelings over your "review" and making lawsuits over it.

It's not a sponsored press release. Payment doesn't get exchanged. All PSUs can blow up if you figure out the Konomi code for each one. PSUs are built and tested to industry standards and a review done to those standards should give you a reasonable level of assurance as to whether to expect your PSU to boom or not.

Just because a manufacturer chooses to sue doesn't mean they are in the right. Yes, journalists/reviewers can do what they think is right and then pay their defense lawyer to get the manufacturer to back off.

The manufacturer's claim would be based on libel - with power supplies a failing one could be declared "unsafe" to which the manufacturer would assert is a lie that causes damages to their brand/reputation/sales.

Having a specifications driven review (for example, testing within the parameters of the ATX 12V standard) allows the reviewer to defend his/her work as truth (a valid defense against a libel claim) because it was done with professional due care to the industry standard that the power supply asserted itself to adhere to.

The issue that [spectre] is pointing out is that OPP essentially a nice idea, but there are no industry/professional standards that document how OPP is supposed to work, therefore, it is difficult to test the feature from a defensible as truth position. If gigabyte gets a bee in its bonnet over this whole thing, then they could have a valid libel claim in the court of law even though they have badly lost in the court of public opinion.

None of this is a defense of this power supply's merits or Gigabyte's response. It is looking at the methodology used to create the failures and noticing that the videos are more of a "here's how we figured out to reliably kill this model PSU for your entertainment" than it was a true investigation of the underlying issues with the power supply.

The results of the GN videos basically state that you can boom the power supply by loading it to OPP a couple times (which yes, could indicate a design or manufacturing issue related to OPP configuration and is a valid point to make). However, to go on and use the power supplies for testing after loading them to OPP a couple of times is like doing a motherboard review where you installed the memory backwards, powered it on a few times, fixed the memory install and were then surprised the board failed in a triumphant puff of magic smoke.
 

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,386
It's not a sponsored press release. Payment doesn't get exchanged. All PSUs can blow up if you figure out the Konomi code for each one. PSUs are built and tested to industry standards and a review done to those standards should give you a reasonable level of assurance as to whether to expect your PSU to boom or not.

Just because a manufacturer chooses to sue doesn't mean they are in the right. Yes, journalists/reviewers can do what they think is right and then pay their defense lawyer to get the manufacturer to back off.

The manufacturer's claim would be based on libel - with power supplies a failing one could be declared "unsafe" to which the manufacturer would assert is a lie that causes damages to their brand/reputation/sales.

Having a specifications driven review (for example, testing within the parameters of the ATX 12V standard) allows the reviewer to defend his/her work as truth (a valid defense against a libel claim) because it was done with professional due care to the industry standard that the power supply asserted itself to adhere to.

The issue that [spectre] is pointing out is that OPP essentially a nice idea, but there are no industry/professional standards that document how OPP is supposed to work, therefore, it is difficult to test the feature from a defensible as truth position. If gigabyte gets a bee in its bonnet over this whole thing, then they could have a valid libel claim in the court of law even though they have badly lost in the court of public opinion.

None of this is a defense of this power supply's merits or Gigabyte's response. It is looking at the methodology used to create the failures and noticing that the videos are more of a "here's how we figured out to reliably kill this model PSU for your entertainment" than it was a true investigation of the underlying issues with the power supply.

The results of the GN videos basically state that you can boom the power supply by loading it to OPP a couple times (which yes, could indicate a design or manufacturing issue related to OPP configuration and is a valid point to make). However, to go on and use the power supplies for testing after loading them to OPP a couple of times is like doing a motherboard review where you installed the memory backwards, powered it on a few times, fixed the memory install and were then surprised the board failed in a triumphant puff of magic smoke.
Except, that as i have already said, Gigabyte clearly stated in their press release (in direct response to this issue)that OPP IS an industry standard (See post #226). Ill even include the link
https://www.techpowerup.com/285568/gigabyte-releases-statement-on-gp-p850gm-gp-p750gm-psus

Every major company (i didn't check the small ones) i checked with lists OPP in their specifications under PROTECTIONS. Grouped together with all of the rest of the industry standard protections OVP, UVP, OCP, OTP, SCP. Not only do they list it, they often define it. Again see post #226 for Seasonics definition pulled from their faq section.
So, how is it that an industry standard doesn't have any specifications OR at the very least some way with which to be tested and verified for safety?
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
Except, that as i have already said, Gigabyte clearly stated in their press release (in direct response to this issue)that OPP IS an industry standard (See post #226). Ill even include the link
https://www.techpowerup.com/285568/gigabyte-releases-statement-on-gp-p850gm-gp-p750gm-psus

Every major company (i didn't check the small ones) i checked with lists OPP in their specifications under PROTECTIONS. Grouped together with all of the rest of the industry standard protections OVP, UVP, OCP, OTP, SCP. Not only do they list it, they often define it. Again see post #226 for Seasonics definition pulled from their faq section.
So, how is it that an industry standard doesn't have any specifications OR at the very least some way with which to be tested and verified for safety?

Gigabyte saying something doesn't make it true. Everyone listing a potential feature doesnt make it a standard. OPP is not defined in the ATX12v spec. Full stop. This is not really a debate.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
That seems rather strange....as it isnt much of a review if you are afraid to say anything bad about the unit. At that point you more or less doing a sponsored press release for the company. I personally would rather know if my PSU can blow up, versus a company having hurt feelings over your "review" and making lawsuits over it.

It is not a matter being afraid, it is about being able to support your conclusion when the lawyers come. If I say but my custom cobbled together equipment in court a competent lawyer will eat me for lunch. If I say industry standard equipment with its paper trail they don't.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
One can run any test they want and leave it up to the reader to evaluate for themselves if applicable to their decision. For example:
  • We took this power supply up to 70% load and simulated a fan failure by unplugging the fan, 20c room temperature.
  • The PS shutdown after 3min and we noted the following component temperature increases using IR camera (show equilibrium temperature a 70% load and when tripped)
  • Visual inspection show no obvious changes in color, smell etc. to components - show before and after high resolution image
  • For this test we conclude that the OT shutdown worked and protected the PS. Or if chicken shit: You can conclude from our feature test if applicable to your decision
Second one that did not pass this test
  • Same first step
  • The power supply after stopping the fan continued to run
  • After 4 min we started to smell something burnt
  • Smoke started to come out of the power supply
  • Power supply failed in 20 min with the following images and components that appeared to be damaged . . .
  • For this test with fan failure it does not appear the OT shutdown protected it. If chicken shit, this is our result, you decide. Manufacture response . . .
I call this BS about lawsuits, there is nothing above that any court would entertain. Your taking a basic clear scenario, in this case, most likely for failure and seeing what happens. Stating for all the industrial type approved tests it passed and then stating the results of the specific protective feature in this case temperature and are not clear industrial standards (STATE THAT) but specific likely abnormal condition -> Any company that has an issue with that will lose.

What, no one can question claims made by a manufacturer, have simple tests to check and see if they work for a likely abnormal occurrence? BS
 

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,386
Gigabyte saying something doesn't make it true. Everyone listing a potential feature doesnt make it a standard. OPP is not defined in the ATX12v spec. Full stop. This is not really a debate.
🤣 Joy, just another reason to ridicule Gigabyte. Hahaha they just cant get out of their own way!

Apparently a healthy dose of skepticism should be taken when dealing with all power supply manufacturers? When it comes to standards and features?

BTW i wasn't trying to start a debate with you. Why would i? I was going off of the seemingly honest information provided by a company i assumed had no reason to lie. Their lying about something they are supposed to be experts in made/makes no sense. Unless of course they just couldn't be bothered to understand what they are building? I don't know which is worse.
Nope, no debate. I was seeking an answer to a question, nothing more. Had you given this explanation the first time i asked it would have saved me a ton of one thumb typing!
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
🤣 Joy, just another reason to ridicule Gigabyte. Hahaha they just cant get out of their own way!

Apparently a healthy dose of skepticism should be taken when dealing with all power supply manufacturers? When it comes to standards and features?

BTW i wasn't trying to start a debate with you. Why would i? I was going off of the seemingly honest information provided by a company i assumed had no reason to lie. Their lying about something they are supposed to be experts in made/makes no sense. Unless of course they just couldn't be bothered to understand what they are building? I don't know which is worse.
Nope, no debate. I was seeking an answer to a question, nothing more. Had you given this explanation the first time i asked it would have saved me a ton of one thumb typing!

Let's put it this way. If I believed them about all of their features, performance and such that they advertise, I wouldn't do this job. Call me cynical. But I don't just believe what people write on packaging for anything in this field. I have been around way too long and seen way too many shady things to believe advertising.


But I also know my specific field. And where to look and what to look at. How to look at it and what not to worry about and what to worry about.
 

pututu

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,174
If Gigabyte PSU is exploding, I wonder how can their units still pass all the safety regulatory bodies like UL, CE, TUV, or what not? Ok they changed to cheaper components after production but still if it does affect the product safety, shouldn't Gigabyte resubmit the PSU for another round of safety check? Does this exploding pose a danger? Perhaps UL, CE, TUV etc needs to start investigating this. ;)
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
If Gigabyte PSU is exploding, I wonder how can their units still pass all the safety regulatory bodies like UL, CE, TUV, or what not? Ok they changed to cheaper components after production but still if it does affect the product safety, shouldn't Gigabyte resubmit the PSU for another round of safety check? Does this exploding pose a danger? Perhaps UL, CE, TUV etc needs to start investigating this. ;)
It's easy. If you have a bad run of components, you can have problems and that's not an issue with UL. CE TUV cetera. Also. All of those standards let things fail. It's just what happens when they fail. So yes, they can do what everyone is incorrectly calling explode and still be inside regulations.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
It's easy. If you have a bad run of components, you can have problems and that's not an issue with UL. CE TUV cetera. Also. All of those standards let things fail. It's just what happens when they fail. So yes, they can do what everyone is incorrectly calling explode and still be inside regulations.
Been digging around, UL uses IEC standards and procedures for their tests. For power supplies IEC 62368-1 "Audio/video, information and communication technology equipment - Part 1: Safety requirements" looks to be the best fit and Bingo. Overcurrent protection requirements, Over temperature protection, Short, Shock, accessibility. Anyways I can only look at the table of contents since I don't own the Standard which cost $350 for a pdf and more for a hardback. It lists how to test such as a clogged fan etc.

The design standards for a PC such as ATX12V v1.0-v2.3 gives what a PC power supply for ATX standards, rails, voltages, pin configuration, sizes, voltage drops allowed, testing for ripple and specs. The safety items required, how to test etc. are from safety standards adopted by the industry, labs, governments etc. These will change and cover shock prevention, accessibility, cover requirements, overcurrent protection, over power protection, shorts, over voltage protection, fire prevention and so on, list is huge and covers the general mandatory requirements for safety. A engineer or team would have to use the ATX standard for the design for it to work as a PC power supply but also use other standards such as IEC to ensure the power supply meets all safety requirements.

I don't know, you might want to take a look and expand into safety checks of the power supplies, looks like these more restrictive standards do give testing guidelines and how to test.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
Been digging around, UL uses IEC standards and procedures for their tests. For power supplies IEC 62368-1 "Audio/video, information and communication technology equipment - Part 1: Safety requirements" looks to be the best fit and Bingo. Overcurrent protection requirements, Over temperature protection, Short, Shock, accessibility. Anyways I can only look at the table of contents since I don't own the Standard which cost $350 for a pdf and more for a hardback. It lists how to test such as a clogged fan etc.
I have a copy.

The design standards for a PC such as ATX12V v1.0-v2.3 gives what a PC power supply for ATX standards, rails, voltages, pin configuration, sizes, voltage drops allowed, testing for ripple and specs. The safety items required, how to test etc. are from safety standards adopted by the industry, labs, governments etc.
Not exactly, the ATX12v Design Guide includes the safety items you mention.
1629937652107.png

1629937749789.png
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
I have a copy.


Not exactly, the ATX12v Design Guide includes the safety items you mention. View attachment 388566
View attachment 388567
Thanks.

The IEC will override if it becomes more restrictive and would be the guiding document if that was the case. There are other safety requirements not listed, shielding/case, preventing shock etc. in the IEC.

For users and buyers, it would be very informative and useful to know how power supplies handle different abnormal but more likely conditions. What a given power supply will do with a clogged fan, short etc. I agree a failed power supply does not mean that it violated a standard but for me if the power supply protects itself on a short and doesn't blow up my motherboard or some stupidity I did great! But much better if it is still usable afterwards without issues. OCP/OPP is something I would like the power supply to survive without damage to itself and protect as much as possible my system.

What I would hope for in a review is a scientifically accurate testing methodology, peer review level, for the specs and common testing methods comparing if the power supply meets let say the ATX specs. Other very important testing done as well which may be or not backed up by other standards such as IEC, stating the test such as disconnected fan, short circuit, etc. and outcome on the power supply if still functional or not and give that as a separate consideration and maybe just the feelings about the results. The review rating of a power supply could be based solely on the standard methodology with standards tests. The other consideration can be reflected upon the safety checks or some likely abnormal conditions that could occur and a separate opinion added to that aspect. If others corroborate findings when they test the same power supply or have similar outcomes then that could also start to weigh more in discussions. For example, you could have a very high rated, efficient power supply that has the best voltage ripple, voltage band etc. and get like a 95% rating or whatever scale one uses and then a separate special test rating that was very poor, not affecting the standard rating but brought up in the overview section and final opinion. Manufacturer feedback also very welcome.

As for Gamers Nexus, all I can say it is a start but very weak from what I've seen. I think they need to back it up better with standards and dig much deeper than they did.
 
Last edited:

D-EJ915

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,513
I pulled out mine from the corner and it does fall within the serial number range so I shot Newegg an email back, will see what they say if I can get a refund or replacement. Since I'm not using it I'd rather get a refund though.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
Thanks.

The IEC will override if it becomes more restrictive and would be the guiding document if that was the case. There are other safety requirements not listed, shielding/case, preventing shock etc. in the IEC.
So, that is sort of a weird thing. For prebuilt systems, yes. For individual components that are meant to be integrated into a system the process is...a bit different.

For users and buyers, it would be very informative and useful to know how power supplies handle different abnormal but more likely conditions. What a given power supply will do with a clogged fan, short etc. I agree a failed power supply does not mean that it violated a standard but for me if the power supply protects itself on a short and doesn't blow up my motherboard or some stupidity I did great! But much better if it is still usable afterwards without issues. OCP/OPP is something I would like the power supply to survive without damage to itself and protect as much as possible my system.

What I would hope for in a review is a scientifically accurate testing methodology, peer review level, for the specs and common testing methods comparing if the power supply meets let say the ATX specs.
That is, honestly, not economically possible. At a minimum that would require me to have 3 units and, for statistical purposes, more like 10 units. To do just my base set of tests right now takes me a little over 20 hours per unit. So, 3 units would take me 60 hours and 10 units would take 200 hours. Who is going to pay me my going rate for 200 hours of work on just the base set of tests let alone what would be at least another 20-40 hours per unit to do all the other tests you want? Seriously, if it was 60 hours per unit then times 10 units that would be 600 hours of work. That review is going to cost $ thousands of dollars in work time and working around my full time job take about 40 weeks (15 hours a week on top of my 60 hour a week job) to do one power supply. So, I could do everything you want.....on about 1 power supply a year.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
So, that is sort of a weird thing. For prebuilt systems, yes. For individual components that are meant to be integrated into a system the process is...a bit different.


That is, honestly, not economically possible. At a minimum that would require me to have 3 units and, for statistical purposes, more like 10 units. To do just my base set of tests right now takes me a little over 20 hours per unit. So, 3 units would take me 60 hours and 10 units would take 200 hours. Who is going to pay me my going rate for 200 hours of work on just the base set of tests let alone what would be at least another 20-40 hours per unit to do all the other tests you want? Seriously, if it was 60 hours per unit then times 10 units that would be 600 hours of work. That review is going to cost $ thousands of dollars in work time and working around my full time job take about 40 weeks (15 hours a week on top of my 60 hour a week job) to do one power supply. So, I could do everything you want.....on about 1 power supply a year.
You just want to be so very accurate, lol, very nice to hear. I really don't think it would take long for these test and if 3 or more samples are needed for statistics then you would have to do that now, at least for failed PS. If they pass, they pass and no need to go further, if they fail something for safety that should be a note and safety is hugely important. OT and Short protection is fire protection. Normally a component is supposed to contain any flammable component liquid inside itself. Of course you do this professionally and definitely know more on that than I. Just PS reviews in general leave out a hell a lot of important things. In Gigabyte case here, this could have been caught last year for example and not hundreds if not thousands of folks suffering through with burnt components, lost time etc. with a crappy power supply. It would have been caught, manufacturers would also up their game to ensure these safety items actually do work as well. If they are never tested, manufacturers can get sloppy to point of being dangerous. A great review process would find these issues in other words.
 

pututu

[H]ard DCOTM x2
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Messages
2,174
I know we are all speculating here. Though it is hard to say for sure if the fire seen in the OP first post can meet the safety test standard per UL or IEC but it certainly raises an alarm.

The gigabyte model below is a UL recognized component. Didn't have time to go through all the info in the UL website pertaining to the gigabyte UL file (File #E313928). The UL standard applicable for the power supply safety test is UL/ANSI/UL 62368-1 which is probably the same as IEC 62368-1 would be my guess. Maybe someone ought to tell UL whether this warrants further investigation when it comes to product safety in general. Teach them a lesson, lol.

1629939983365.png
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
I know we are all speculating here. Though it is hard to say for sure if the fire seen in the OP first post can meet the safety test standard per UL or IEC but it certainly raises an alarm.

The gigabyte model below is a UL recognized component. Didn't have time to go through all the info in the UL website pertaining to the gigabyte UL file (File #E313928). The UL standard applicable for the power supply safety test is UL/ANSI/UL 62368-1 which is probably the same as IEC 62368-1 would be my guess. Maybe someone ought to tell UL whether this warrants further investigation when it comes to product safety in general. Teach them a lesson, lol.

View attachment 388607

The thing it comes down to is that the samples submitted were, most likely, good on all tests. A bad batch of components later does not negate that. I say that because based on what I am seeing of the issue outside of GN looks more like bad component batch rather than a terrible design (note....it is not a great unit from a performance perspective but it is not the classic dumpster fire). Everyone has gotten bitten by bad components from suppliers before. It is part of the business unfortunately.
 

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,386
@
The thing it comes down to is that the samples submitted were, most likely, good on all tests. A bad batch of components later does not negate that. I say that because based on what I am seeing of the issue outside of GN looks more like bad component batch rather than a terrible design (note....it is not a great unit from a performance perspective but it is not the classic dumpster fire). Everyone has gotten bitten by bad components from suppliers before. It is part of the business unfortunately.
How would you rate MEIC as an oem overall? Should they be avoided?
 

Chelica

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
2,698
Crazy how I almost ended up with the 850 variant in my main PC. Luckily I got my bundle (With a 3080ti) prior to Newegg revising their return requirement.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
You just want to be so very accurate, lol, very nice to hear.
Well, it is my background. That is why Kyle hired me initially.

I really don't think it would take long for these test
It really does. Between time to program the tests, run the test, export the data, analyze the data, prepare the data for presentation so people can understand it (and they still don't) takes a lot of time.

and if 3 or more samples are needed for statistics then you would have to do that now, at least for failed PS.
I do multipl units for any failed unit. If you count raw units I have tested I am still barely at break even becuase of failed units taking up so much of my time versus passing units. So, each time I fail a unit that was 2, or 3 ,or 4, or 5 units I tested. Add those up versus the ones that passed and I get stuck at break even after almost 15 years of doing this.

If they pass, they pass and no need to go further, if they fail something for safety that should be a note and safety is hugely important. OT and Short protection is fire protection. Normally a component is supposed to contain any flammable component liquid inside itself.
Well, that depends on what you are certifying and what "itself" is. This is a bit like Bill Clinton and what is the definition of Is "is".

Of course you do this professionally and definitely know more on that than I. Just PS reviews in general leave out a hell a lot of important things.
We do. The thing is, it is a multifactorial reason for it. 1) Cost. It is already hella expensive to do this even close to right. 2) Most people don't care. Which means they don't read....which means we don't get ad dollars...which means we can't pay the bills. 3) When I started just being able to do what the label said was rare. As time has progressed and we have put more spotlight on things some things have gotten better. But, we have to balance what we can test, what we can defend, and what we can get people to read against what we could do. As more things have gotten better we have added tests over the years. We used to not test Transient Load response. After a while we had the ability through funding to advance the testing methodology. So, I worked with Nautilus and we developed the Transient Load Tester (shout out to Nautilus still!). If the funding allows us to advance the testing into more areas we can....but......the site owners, the reviewers, and the editors can't work for free. We have to find a way to compensate our time. But, people like to block ads or go to Youtube where this content does not place in searches well. So, we sit where we sit. If you guys really want to see us do this stuff there are a few of us who can (I mentioned Lee at PcPer, Oklohoma_Wolf/Jeremy at JG.com, me at TheFPSReview because of Kyle Bennett here at [H]ardOCP/HardForum's generous support in equipment, etc) but the money is not there right now to support it beyond what we do. Most people would rather watch the "Facebook" sensationalist (I won't call it journalism) "presentation" of GN who doesn't know what they are doing rather than the "old timers" who do. Yeah, you can argue we don't evolve with the times but, honestly, unless it is a flaming dumpster fire this stuff is not interesting to people except about 5 seconds before they buy and they google a review. So, the money to support the work is not there to expand to more expensive than what we do. Honestly, if you had to start from scratch today to do PSU reviews you would be out of business in less than a month. The equipment alone would sink you. Then the contractor cost would sink you. Then the pressure from the vendors would sink you. It is a lose, lose, lose situation UNLESS you are already a known commodity. THen you can barely make it by like those of us who are still left doing are barely floating by.

In Gigabyte case here, this could have been caught last year for example and not hundreds if not thousands of folks suffering through with burnt components, lost time etc. with a crappy power supply. It would have been caught, manufacturers would also up their game to ensure these safety items actually do work as well. If they are never tested, manufacturers can get sloppy to point of being dangerous. A great review process would find these issues in other words.

It may or may not have. It really depends on their internal sturcture for tracking this side business of theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
@

How would you rate MEIC as an oem overall? Should they be avoided?

That puts me in a libel situation. So, I will say this. They do not have the pedigree and defined performance record of someone like Seasonic, Delta, SuperFlower, Flextronics, Win-Tact, AcBel, Impervio, 3Y, Athena, Etasis, Impervio, Lite-On, Seventeam, Zippy, etc. Those OEMs have a track record and significant performance and safety metrics.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
Well, it is my background. That is why Kyle hired me initially.


It really does. Between time to program the tests, run the test, export the data, analyze the data, prepare the data for presentation so people can understand it (and they still don't) takes a lot of time.


I do multipl units for any failed unit. If you count raw units I have tested I am still barely at break even becuase of failed units taking up so much of my time versus passing units. So, each time I fail a unit that was 2, or 3 ,or 4, or 5 units I tested. Add those up versus the ones that passed and I get stuck at break even after almost 15 years of doing this.


Well, that depends on what you are certifying and what "itself" is. This is a bit like Bill Clinton and what is the definition of Is "is".


We do. The thing is, it is a multifactorial reason for it. 1) Cost. It is already hella expensive to do this even close to right. 2) Most people don't care. Which means they don't read....which means we don't get ad dollars...which means we can't pay the bills. 3) When I started just being able to do what the label said was rare. As time has progressed and we have put more spotlight on things some things have gotten better. But, we have to balance what we can test, what we can defend, and what we can get people to read against what we could do. As more things have gotten better we have added tests over the years. We used to not test Transient Load response. After a while we had the ability through funding to advance the testing methodology. So, I worked with Nautilus and we developed the Transient Load Tester (shout out to Nautilus still!). If the funding allows us to advance the testing into more areas we can....but......the site owners, the reviewers, and the editors can't work for free. We have to find a way to compensate our time. But, people like to block ads or go to Youtube where this content does not place in searches well. So, we sit where we sit. If you guys really want to see us do this stuff there are a few of us who can (I mentioned Lee at PcPer, Oklohoma_Wolf/Jeremy at JG.com, me at TheFPSReview because of Kyle Bennett here at [H]ardOCP/HardForum's generous support in equipment, etc) but the money is not there right now to support it beyond what we do. Most people would rather watch the "Facebook" sensationalist (I won't call it journalism) "presentation" of GN who doesn't know what they are doing rather than the "old timers" who do. Yeah, you can argue we don't evolve with the times but, honestly, unless it is a flaming dumpster fire this stuff is not interesting to people except about 5 seconds before they buy and they google a review. So, the money to support the work is not there to expand to more expensive than what we do. Honestly, if you had to start from scratch today to do PSU reviews you would be out of business in less than a month. The equipment alone would sink you. Then the contractor cost would sink you. Then the pressure from the vendors would sink you. It is a lose, lose, lose situation UNLESS you are already a known commodity. THen you can barely make it by like those of us who are still left doing are barely floating by.



It may or may not have. It really depends on their internal sturcture for tracking this side business of theirs.
Thanks for all the details here and time as well. If it can't be reasonably done with the current assets plus funds I definitely understand, yes your reviews frankly are the best I've have the pleasure to read. At one point every power supply I owned was on your good side list and only one had an issue in shutting down (oh that OPP protection) below max power (Seasonic Focus 850fx Gold), I am using it driving two Vega FE's in a mining rig at about 450w-500w and is working fine, thought about sending it in but it is working for what I need at the present time. Thanks for all the great responses.
 

hititnquitit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
1,386
That puts me in a libel situation. So, I will say this. They do not have the pedigree and defined performance record of someone like Seasonic, Delta, SuperFlower, Flextronics, Win-Tact, AcBel, Impervio, 3Y, Athena, Etasis, Impervio, Lite-On, Seventeam, Zippy, etc. Those OEMs have a track record and significant performance and safety metrics.
Thanks 👍
Im one of the few, the proud, the non-youtuber. I don't watch video reviews. Im old school. I enjoy a good read.
Now that i know where to find your stuff, ill make it a habit to check it out (adblocker off)!
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,383
That puts me in a libel situation. So, I will say this. They do not have the pedigree and defined performance record of someone like Seasonic, Delta, SuperFlower, Flextronics, Win-Tact, AcBel, Impervio, 3Y, Athena, Etasis, Impervio, Lite-On, Seventeam, Zippy, etc. Those OEMs have a track record and significant performance and safety metrics.
If offering an opinion on a public forum could be considered libel we all would be in deep trouble.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,187
It's only libel if it's false/lie. If it's a true statement then it isn't libel. Libel suits against someone are very hard to 'win'. "I just stated what actually happened..." judge would throw out any libel case before it even went to trial... As long as you state what your testing method and procedure was, and what result you got, there is no libel case to be had. It would be on Gigabyte to 'prove' that you lied, they would lose.

GN has the balls to tell us exactly what they found, and showed an unedited test run that reproduced the failure. OPP says in it's name that it is "Over Power Protection" This comes right off of the webpage on Gigabytes' website. GN showed putting the PSU at 130% load for like a full minute and the PSU never shut off.. it's clear from that alone that the OPP in this unit doesn't work properly. Full Stop.
Everything else is just nitpicky or misdirecting bullshit, or hilarious when the PSU explodes a minute later. I don't give a flying fuck if the information came from Youtube and had a sensational title and a comedic picture on the video preview. Not everything on youtube is true, not everything on Youtube is false either.

It's all there in the video for everyone to see. Has Gigabyte, or anyone, explained any missteps in the testing procedure? OPP isn't in the ATX12 spec.. doesn't mean it isn't a common advertised feature. If the PSU manufacturers do not want to define the "standard" and how it should be tested, then for now I will 100% accept GN's testing procedure and results.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
It's only libel if it's false/lie. If it's a true statement then it isn't libel. Libel suits against someone are very hard to 'win'. "I just stated what actually happened..." judge would throw out any libel case before it even went to trial... As long as you state what your testing method and procedure was, and what result you got, there is no libel case to be had. It would be on Gigabyte to 'prove' that you lied, they would lose.

You don't have to lose one in court to lose in reality.

GN has the balls to tell us exactly what they found, and showed an unedited test run that reproduced the failure. OPP says in it's name that it is "Over Power Protection" This comes right off of the webpage on Gigabytes' website. GN showed putting the PSU at 130% load for like a full minute and the PSU never shut off.. it's clear from that alone that the OPP in this unit doesn't work properly. Full Stop.

No, it means that the OPP point is not set at 130%. You can try and make whatever grand sounding claims you want but that doesn't mean they are true.

Everything else is just nitpicky or misdirecting bullshit, or hilarious when the PSU explodes a minute later. I don't give a flying fuck if the information came from Youtube and had a sensational title and a comedic picture on the video preview. Not everything on youtube is true, not everything on Youtube is false either.

It's all there in the video for everyone to see. Has Gigabyte, or anyone, explained any missteps in the testing procedure? OPP isn't in the ATX12 spec.. doesn't mean it isn't a common advertised feature. If the PSU manufacturers do not want to define the "standard" and how it should be tested, then for now I will 100% accept GN's testing procedure and results.

Yes. People have, multiple times. You just don't want to listen to people who know what they are doing but instead want your beliefs to be reaffirmed no matter the truth and you are upset that not everyone will rally to your need for confirmation bias.
 

Starfalcon

Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
758
It's only libel if it's false/lie. If it's a true statement then it isn't libel. Libel suits against someone are very hard to 'win'. "I just stated what actually happened..." judge would throw out any libel case before it even went to trial... As long as you state what your testing method and procedure was, and what result you got, there is no libel case to be had. It would be on Gigabyte to 'prove' that you lied, they would lose.

I think what he is meaning to say when he uses the term libel, is that if he says anything bad about any PSU manufacturer, he can get blacklisted and not get samples to test. So he has to walk a fine line not to piss them off and keep getting samples, not that they will actually get lawyers and take him to court and spend tons of money to make an example of him. I am sure he has all sorts of things he would like to say, but has to stick to this so he doesnt endanger his job.
 

GoodBoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
2,187
Fair enough. But if he is worrying about getting "free samples', his integrity has already been compromised.

As far as the OPP set above 130%, this was their choice. It was a bad one. It would be a better design if the OPP kicked in at 105% to 110%, and also after only a few seconds. Instead, their design kicks in post 130% after multiple minutes, by which time the unit has suffered damage. This is 100% on Gigabyte, not on the tester/reviewer. This is 100% design failure.
Doesn't matter if it's the components can't handle it, the trip point being too high, the time to trip too long, or the cooling being inadequate to keep the parts operational during an Over Power event. The design is 100% responsible for all of this. It's not a "grand sounding claim", it's fact.

Calling it anything else or spinning it any other way is deception.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
Fair enough. But if he is worrying about getting "free samples', his integrity has already been compromised.

As far as the OPP set above 130%, this was their choice. It was a bad one. It would be a better design if the OPP kicked in at 105% to 110%, and also after only a few seconds. Instead, their design kicks in post 130% after multiple minutes, by which time the unit has suffered damage. This is 100% on Gigabyte, not on the tester/reviewer. This is 100% design failure.
Doesn't matter if it's the components can't handle it, the trip point being too high, the time to trip too long, or the cooling being inadequate to keep the parts operational during an Over Power event. The design is 100% responsible for all of this. It's not a "grand sounding claim", it's fact.

Calling it anything else or spinning it any other way is deception.
I would look at it two ways, if a reviewer comes in with an apparent bias, the reader or viewer may think the results where skewed and may or would not trust the review or even bother with it -> keeping neutral and being professional earns reputation, noteworthiness and so on. Second side is giving free samples for a professional, one known to be professional and calls it like it is means to the company that if they are confident in their product and the professional reviewer does his/her job flawlessly and is well respected in the community they will get a very good overall awareness for their kickass product. Plus if they refuse to sample the professional reviewer it tells folks they do not have a good product and too chicken shit to have it reviewed by someone that will show it how it is. HardOCP reviews to me was on that level and you saw samples given to them because of that reason. ASUS gave samples to HardOCP, sometimes truckloads and people really noted ASUS had very high confidence in their products. While let say ASRock did not sample, anything, which to many spoke loudly about what they thought of their own products. HardOCP still reviewed payed for samples and showed ASRock bad but also good reviews as well since the standard did not change and the reviews where consistently top notch. The PSU reviews pushed the testing to the next level and lead others to have to advance as well to be considered professional.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,875
We do. The thing is, it is a multifactorial reason for it. 1) Cost. It is already hella expensive to do this even close to right.
How many PSU's did GN buy again?
2) Most people don't care. Which means they don't read....which means we don't get ad dollars...which means we can't pay the bills.
I don't know, but it seems people really do care what GN is reporting with Gigabyte. We are here after all.
Most people would rather watch the "Facebook" sensationalist (I won't call it journalism) "presentation" of GN who doesn't know what they are doing rather than the "old timers" who do.
You do know there was a point when people who operated websites and did journalism were considered unprofessional and irrelevant. The real pros worked for newspapers and magazines. This is just video that killed the radio star, or the YouTuber killed the website.
Honestly, if you had to start from scratch today to do PSU reviews you would be out of business in less than a month. The equipment alone would sink you. Then the contractor cost would sink you. Then the pressure from the vendors would sink you. It is a lose, lose, lose situation UNLESS you are already a known commodity. THen you can barely make it by like those of us who are still left doing are barely floating by.
This is why I like Gamers Nexus. They did exactly that and that's why people love them for it.
Not exactly. I also professionally review their products. So, I have to be more careful in how I present opinion than a regular user.
You wonder why not many people pay attention to your reviews?
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
Gamers Nexus was for show, clicks, drama, not a professionally explained test procedure and results. Selling a theme and earnest effort in directing you to golden paradise products steering one away from the bad. It is mostly a show, more like a cult following in a sort of fashion.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
630
well im satisfied that they demonstrated that opp doesn't work satisfactorily and shut the psu down before doing damage to itself. seems a design flaw to me, wouldnt accept one of those psu's even if it was free. gigabyte can waffle on as much as they want i dont think many people are buying their excuses imho.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,644
well im satisfied that they demonstrated that opp doesn't work satisfactorily and shut the psu down before doing damage to itself. seems a design flaw to me, wouldnt accept one of those psu's even if it was free. gigabyte can waffle on as much as they want i dont think many people are buying their excuses imho.
Ask yourself these if your would:
  1. Is any of their OPP testing by some guidelines, a consistent testing procedure which can be peered reviewed? No
  2. Where is the control standard or samples? Did you see them doing the exact same test and samples for a number 750w Seasonics in similar price range and maybe one other like a number of 750w EVGA power supplies? Would they with their testing methodology have the same result? We don't know
  3. They did show that OPP worked on all samples, where does OPP protection state that the PS has to work afterwards, some PS have protective fuses on the inside which are not repairable by the user, meaning you have to have it professionally repaired and tested to make sure it was not the PS that failed vice a downstream load. Now granted I would like to know if the power supply after an OPP protection event is still good and not destroy my machine on a restart. Still there was no promise after an OPP event the PS is still good, now Master Cooler states their power supplies will protect themselves from an OPP event, if true or not I am not sure.
  4. They said this process was over 5 months in the making, they didn't have time to test their methodology against other power supplies to validate the results? Is that not somewhat disingenuous?
  5. Did any of those power supplies failed during normal operating specified conditions before the tests? Indicating the failure rate they plastered all over the video Newegg feedback chart? Note: people are more likely to leave feedback with a failure, skewing any meaning of those graphs.
All safety features to prevent fires, shocks etc. OCP/OVP/OPP/Short Circuit Protection are based on a single event failure, not multiple events. Meaning these are minimally design to handle one abnormal condition and not two. Gamer Nexus did two abnormal conditions: Running the power supply above normal operating power for a time period followed up to an OPP condition -> The power supply has a rating, max rating 750w. If you start operating it above 750w before testing any of the safety features you are causing 2 failed events together (operation above design and then testing OPP). If they took the power supply from 60% to OPP protection, a single failure event either internal or external of the power supply then that would indicate better if the Power Supply was usable after the protective feature was activated. I do think these are crappy Power Supplies but not from their testing.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,557
Gamers Nexus was for show, clicks, drama, not a professionally explained test procedure and results. Selling a theme and earnest effort in directing you to golden paradise products steering one away from the bad. It is mostly a show, more like a cult following in a sort of fashion.
If that was their goal they wouldn't have sat on it for 5 months while trying to get gigabyte to do something about it behind the scenes. I view it the same as someone that finds a zero day exploit and finally goes public with it after reporting it and getting blown off for months.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
How many PSU's did GN buy again?
I am not GN, so you are asking the wrong person. PSU's cost though is insignificant in the context of doing a PSU review. It is like what I tell people looking to buy a horse if you are trying to figure out paying the purchase price you can not afford to own a horse.

I don't know, but it seems people really do care what GN is reporting with Gigabyte. We are here after all.
About one power supply. There are not 7 page threads about every power supply that comes out. That is the point. And, it is a silly argument for you to try to make when I have seen the backend for 15 years on the numbers. Power supply reviews don't usually generate huge day 1 impressions like a new GPU or CPU. They numbers take time to aggregate. The one good side is there are very few of us who do the work and power supplies stay relevant for longer so a 3 or 4 year old article will still get pulled by someone searching out a new purchase.

You do know there was a point when people who operated websites and did journalism were considered unprofessional and irrelevant. The real pros worked for newspapers and magazines. This is just video that killed the radio star, or the YouTuber killed the website.

The fallacy of the real pros working at newspapers and magazines has been put to rest long ago.

This is why I like Gamers Nexus. They did exactly that and that's why people love them for it.

No, they didn't. They do not have a test program in place. People love them for it because people like to join groups and complain loudly about things they don't know anything about.

You wonder why not many people pay attention to your reviews?
I would not be on year 15 if people didn't pay attention to my reviews.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
18,090
Fair enough. But if he is worrying about getting "free samples', his integrity has already been compromised.
Not worried about free samples. From a cost perspective to produce a review the power supply cost is irrelevant.

As far as the OPP set above 130%, this was their choice.
Ok.
It was a bad one.
Why? Because GN says so?

It would be a better design if the OPP kicked in at 105% to 110%, and also after only a few seconds.

Why?
Instead, their design kicks in post 130% after multiple minutes, by which time the unit has suffered damage. This is 100% on Gigabyte, not on the tester/reviewer. This is 100% design failure.
Doesn't matter if it's the components can't handle it, the trip point being too high, the time to trip too long, or the cooling being inadequate to keep the parts operational during an Over Power event. The design is 100% responsible for all of this. It's not a "grand sounding claim", it's fact.

Calling it anything else or spinning it any other way is deception.

No, calling it what it is is what it is. The spin everyone is trying to put on a feature that is not defined and not tested to a standard is spin.
 
Top