Very Interesting jonnyGURU thread!!

Insula Gilliganis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,466
Just wanted to make all you [H] PSU enthusiasts aware, in case you missed it, of a very interesting, informative, and lively jonnyGURU.com thread that happened about a week ago concerning Oklahoma Wolf's review of the Cooler Master Elite V2 550W. The thread has responses from a Cooler Master rep as well as additional comments from SilverStone and Antec reps. Even "our own" Redbeard makes an appearance. Just wish all forum discussions were as fun to read as this one was!!

image.jpg
 
Interesting indeed - thanks for the share.
I've generally thought CM psu's were garbage so this just further provides evidence to that effect.
3 years of fudging on the label but all this time they were "typos"? How the fuck are you still in business if your QC is not catching typos on a wattage label for 3 years now? "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true".

Classic canned responses too by the CM rep. "Oh these psu's aren't marketed towards power users like this site". Huh? Yeah, of course not. You want the store 'browse' people who don't have testing equipment to pick them up since they can't prove that your unit is a POS.

More surprising (to me) is that the EVGA 500 watt unit they also picked up and tested out of pocket actually did as good as it did....nice to see, another decent cheap unit I can add to my list of acceptable units for budget builds for friends.
 
Interesting. I have avoided Coolermaster psus in the past, and from the looks of the way they market their psus, I will continue to avoid them.
 
I dont get this. Cooler Master is a good brand and doesnt have to keep doing crap like this. Their new V series power supplies are top notch. Their cooling products have always been extremely good as have been their cases. Their keyboards are very good too. For the life of me I dont understand why they keep mis-labeling their power supplies. Theyre better than this!
 
Meh, that's why I buy based on specific model instead of brand. As long as the brand has good customer service and RMA.

As for the Silverstone rep and everyone else calling for recalls... when a recall of that scale costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for practically no reason except for maybe a few extra sales to enthusiasts (maybe 100 units or less)... there's absolutely no reason to do a recall. It might not be the morally right thing to do, but running a business isn't about the morals.
 
I've never been a big cooler master fan(lol). In the A8? days they kept coming out with these over priced gimicky product lines especially the cases which were just shit but peppered with decent products like hyper 212 and the centurion? mid-tower. It was a very nice design but I was already on the antec three hundred train. Now that's a good affordable mid-tower.

I had a couple store bought power supplies laying around but I checked those are corsair. I'm not apposed to buying a shitty little 400-500w cooler master psu but I know what i'm getting into when its $10 after rebate. Its gonna power something I don't care about.

I guess the point I'm getting at is cooler master as a company in general really lost credibility a long time ago. I'm not that picky with my parts and other than a 212 someone gave me for free recently I haven't used a cooler master product in years. I typically follow a combination of OCP and a couple other independent sites and cooler master just never seems to be on my radar.
 
I don't understand roasting CM for putting a conservative rating on the label while using a pretty decent though inefficient design.

If they are going to overrate the PSU, this is a much more reasonable and safe way to go about it.

At this price point I'd almost be surprised not to see some wishful thinking on the model numbers. Cheap 500W/550W powersupplies have traditionally been slightly "overrated" if you consider the name on the box a rating. Just because a builder may be in the market for a low cost PSU solution and not a typical JohnnyGuru reader doesn't mean he/she is a fool. Consumers look at labels.

I thought the CM rep did a good job... and Redbeard saying it is refreshing is hardly any participation at all. I've never been a coolerMaster user but mostly just because I find their brand uninspiring. That's a pretty lame reason to avoid a company but... "Cooler Master" just doesn't roll off the tongue quite like "Corsair" or "Seasonic". CoolerMaster sounds like... WaterBoy.
 
It's definitely interesting to watch official company representatives accuse one another of misconduct on a forum thread, revealing knowledge of typical business practices in their industry.

That said, I'm surprised to see that anyone would actually care about an a 485W PSU being sold as 550W. I started working with computers in the late 1990s, and I've always assumed that PSUs were mislabeled that way. I generally assume that the rated capacity is the point where it would fry, and that it can really only handle about 75% of the rated capacity comfortably.

I didn't think that there was any expectation of honesty or integrity with PSU labeling. I thought that was the part of the computer where everyone's trying to save a buck and you have to be skeptical of any label you see. They can just shrug and say "bad luck," or "you must have dirty power/bad components," etc.

It's always been the easiest place to get away with shoddy manufacturing, because there are so many externalities you can blame a failure upon.

I mean, they wouldn't be the first to do something like this. HDD manufacturers cheat you out of capacity by using units of 1000 instead of 1024. ISPs quote your speeds in Mbps instead of MB/s. If they can get away with fudging numbers to sell you on something, they will. It's a very old trick. I'm actually surprised none of them rate their PSUs in VA instead of Watts to generate bigger numbers.
 
Last edited:
It's definitely interesting to watch official company representatives accuse one another of misconduct on a forum thread, revealing knowledge of typical business practices in their industry.

That said, I'm surprised to see that anyone would actually care about an a 485W PSU being sold as 550W. I started working with computers in the late 1990s, and I've always assumed that PSUs were mislabeled that way. I generally assume that the rated capacity is the point where it would fry, and that it can really only handle about 75% of the rated capacity comfortably.

I didn't think that there was any expectation of honesty or integrity with PSU labeling. I thought that was the part of the computer where everyone's trying to save a buck and you have to be skeptical of any label you see. They can just shrug and say "bad luck," or "you must have dirty power/bad components," etc.

It's always been the easiest place to get away with shoddy manufacturing, because there are so many externalities you can blame a failure upon.

I mean, they wouldn't be the first to do something like this. HDD manufacturers cheat you out of capacity by using units of 1000 instead of 1024. ISPs quote your speeds in Mbps instead of MB/s. If they can get away with fudging numbers to sell you on something, they will. It's a very old trick. I'm actually surprised none of them rate their PSUs in VA instead of Watts to generate bigger numbers.

It's not malicious. That's how we actually calculate throughput in the industry as well as errors, encoding etc etc. For troubleshooting purposes we measure in bits and it's just easier and more specific. Metaphorically like american versus metric. Obviously to the consumer it does look a whole lot cooler on paper so they just don't really have any reason to summarize it to MB/s. When we can say were offering 105/5 there's just not reason to back away from it, but it's not a gimmick.
 
I don't understand roasting CM for putting a conservative rating on the label while using a pretty decent though inefficient design.

If they are going to overrate the PSU, this is a much more reasonable and safe way to go about it.

At this price point I'd almost be surprised not to see some wishful thinking on the model numbers. Cheap 500W/550W powersupplies have traditionally been slightly "overrated" if you consider the name on the box a rating. Just because a builder may be in the market for a low cost PSU solution and not a typical JohnnyGuru reader doesn't mean he/she is a fool. Consumers look at labels.

I thought the CM rep did a good job... and Redbeard saying it is refreshing is hardly any participation at all. I've never been a coolerMaster user but mostly just because I find their brand uninspiring. That's a pretty lame reason to avoid a company but... "Cooler Master" just doesn't roll off the tongue quite like "Corsair" or "Seasonic". CoolerMaster sounds like... WaterBoy.

Yeah while not the end of the world it does bother me that theyre branding something s "550" watt power supply and itll only do 500. Im not sure Id lobby for a recall of all of them but I do think a 550 watt power supply should make that 500 watts. Flea market brands do this all the time but Cooler Master is a very good brand that makes a lot of excellent things. I wouldnt care if this were Diablotek because I wouldnt touch their stuff with a barge pole and what do you expect from a bargain basement brand but this is Cooler Master which I consider a tier 1 brand in a lot of things. This is like if Corsair, XFX, Silverstone or somebody like that were doing this. I think thats why people get worked up.
 
..but this is Cooler Master which I consider a tier 1 brand in a lot of things. This is like if Corsair, XFX, Silverstone or somebody like that were doing this. I think thats why people get worked up.

I have never had the impression that CM was a Tier 1 brand for psus. Cases, okay. Heatsinks are decent. But psus? I've never bought a CM psu, and this event reinforces the fact that they are NOT a tier 1 psu maker.
 
I didn't think that there was any expectation of honesty or integrity with PSU labeling. I thought that was the part of the computer where everyone's trying to save a buck and you have to be skeptical of any label you see. They can just shrug and say "bad luck," or "you must have dirty power/bad components," etc.

It's always been the easiest place to get away with shoddy manufacturing, because there are so many externalities you can blame a failure upon.

This really gets to the meat of why this even goes on without any oversite, because overrating a PSU with its model name and then putting the properly rated label on it is one thing, and the common thing, while putting a false label on the thing is negligent and could end up bringing a company down completely if enough children died in the resulting fire--assuming you could pin it on the PSU, everyone would just say "electrical fire".

It is because PSU mfgs know that the end user WONT be looking on the inside of the box whether the thing is alive or dead 99.9% of the time. That is why they can safely assume, on the low end, that no one will be calling them out on the component choices they make. That's why I'm a little surprised and disappointed to see people giving CM a hard time here, because I expected this thing to really be a complete disaster based on what it is and what it cost. And I was really dreading that it might explode at its own rated wattage. Efficiency is really not much of an issue at all... and that's where this unit really sucked, besides the fact that it was not built to last more than a couple years. I think for 50 smackers, that's about all you can hope for and I've bought plenty of "temporary" PSUs because I simply could not afford a higher quality unit.
 
I have never had the impression that CM was a Tier 1 brand for psus. Cases, okay. Heatsinks are decent. But psus? I've never bought a CM psu, and this event reinforces the fact that they are NOT a tier 1 psu maker.

Their V series PSUs are excellent, based on the Seasonic platform. Are they overall tier 1? No. But do they have PSUs that can be considered tier 1? Yes, they do.

IMO, the only reason to avoid a brand is if they have crap customer service and RMA. EK, XSPC, and Asus are all in that category for me. I would pick an MSI board over an Asus board, even if the Asus is superior, because MSI has always had excellent customer service for me. Same goes for Azza, Corsair, Coolermaster, Gigabyte, and Western Digital.

This really gets to the meat of why this even goes on without any oversite, because overrating a PSU with its model name and then putting the properly rated label on it is one thing, and the common thing, while putting a false label on the thing is negligent and could end up bringing a company down completely if enough children died in the resulting fire--assuming you could pin it on the PSU, everyone would just say "electrical fire".

It is because PSU mfgs know that the end user WONT be looking on the inside of the box whether the thing is alive or dead 99.9% of the time. That is why they can safely assume, on the low end, that no one will be calling them out on the component choices they make. That's why I'm a little surprised and disappointed to see people giving CM a hard time here, because I expected this thing to really be a complete disaster based on what it is and what it cost. And I was really dreading that it might explode at its own rated wattage. Efficiency is really not much of an issue at all... and that's where this unit really sucked, besides the fact that it was not built to last more than a couple years. I think for 50 smackers, that's about all you can hope for and I've bought plenty of "temporary" PSUs because I simply could not afford a higher quality unit.

Meh, Corsair CX430s are quite decent for $20.
 
Meh, that's why I buy based on specific model instead of brand. As long as the brand has good customer service and RMA.

As for the Silverstone rep and everyone else calling for recalls... when a recall of that scale costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for practically no reason except for maybe a few extra sales to enthusiasts (maybe 100 units or less)... there's absolutely no reason to do a recall. It might not be the morally right thing to do, but running a business isn't about the morals.

Our original post there wasn't calling for recalls of their PSUs, rather, we were calling Oklahoma Wolf to deduct points off of a PSU that's been over-labled from his final scoring verdict. We didn't think it was fair that just because their new reps said they were going to "right the ship" that they deserve a little slack when it came to scoring PSUs.

Our second post there was in response to CM rep's claim that they are willing to change for the better and that their PSU over-labeling was just a "typo."

Our business is hurt by what Cooler Master (and others) are doing in the market place. They are able to offer what appears to be lower priced PSUs than we can when a large part of that cost difference is down to over-rating/over-labeling their PSUs. Most budget buyers aren't as educated about PSUs to know. But sites such as JonnyGURU and HardOCP do have influence so more and more companies now learn to send their higher end models for review to gain positive brand recognition while continue to sell over-labeled models on the lower end. By not joining this practice, maybe we really are just too old-fashioned or not "flexible" enough (as some of our distributors and resellers like to call us) when it comes to selling our PSUs?
 
Our original post there wasn't calling for recalls of their PSUs, rather, we were calling Oklahoma Wolf to deduct points off of a PSU that's been over-labled from his final scoring verdict. We didn't think it was fair that just because their new reps said they were going to "right the ship" that they deserve a little slack when it came to scoring PSUs.

Yeah, if the standard is that PSUs are supposed to be able run at their rated capacity continuously, then they shouldn't have been given any slack. The peak wattage of that thing was obviously somewhere around 640W based on their own testing I saw in the thread, which would have required about a 25% safety margin to keep it running for any length of time.

That would more or less confirm that it has a 480 - 500W maximum usage at best.
Our business is hurt by what Cooler Master (and others) are doing in the market place. They are able to offer what appears to be lower priced PSUs than we can when a large part of that cost difference is down to over-rating/over-labeling their PSUs. Most budget buyers aren't as educated about PSUs to know. But sites such as JonnyGURU and HardOCP do have influence so more and more companies now learn to send their higher end models for review to gain positive brand recognition while continue to sell over-labeled models on the lower end. By not joining this practice, maybe we really are just too old-fashioned or not "flexible" enough (as some of our distributors and resellers like to call us) when it comes to selling our PSUs?

I don't think it's old-fashioned at all. Using quality components and rating the things honestly is actually the NEW way, and probably the better way. In the old days, all the stores only stocked no-name brands, and would outright tell you that the wattage ratings were just peak ratings, and that you had to add in a 25% safety margin if you wanted them to be reliable/safe or last for any length of time.

There were tons of electronics store employees that would tell customers that you can only safely load a PSU to 75% of the rated capacity... that the rating is peak/redline, and thus doesn't represent a continuous running time.

I only recently learned that that wasn't true, but that's one of the main ways that such companies keep getting away with this. People are used to them being overrated and worry that their PSU will fail quickly or maybe even catch fire if they run it at the rating on the label.

These days, I can actually find brands like Antec, Corsair, and Silverstone in the stores, when just a few years before all I saw were brands like A1 and Enermax. That's progress, the stores actually stock quality supplies rather than just pushing the cheap stuff.

The market basically needs to be reassured that some companies care about quality, and that 550 can actually mean 550, rather than 400.
 
Last edited:
Our original post there wasn't calling for recalls of their PSUs, rather, we were calling Oklahoma Wolf to deduct points off of a PSU that's been over-labled from his final scoring verdict. We didn't think it was fair that just because their new reps said they were going to "right the ship" that they deserve a little slack when it came to scoring PSUs.

Our second post there was in response to CM rep's claim that they are willing to change for the better and that their PSU over-labeling was just a "typo."

Our business is hurt by what Cooler Master (and others) are doing in the market place. They are able to offer what appears to be lower priced PSUs than we can when a large part of that cost difference is down to over-rating/over-labeling their PSUs. Most budget buyers aren't as educated about PSUs to know. But sites such as JonnyGURU and HardOCP do have influence so more and more companies now learn to send their higher end models for review to gain positive brand recognition while continue to sell over-labeled models on the lower end. By not joining this practice, maybe we really are just too old-fashioned or not "flexible" enough (as some of our distributors and resellers like to call us) when it comes to selling our PSUs?

I completely agree with you. I've always trusted JG's PSU reviews highly, but what Oklahoma Wolf did in that review is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. The box has a giant 550W on it, but since the label said 500, thats all it was tested to. In my opinion that is a complete farce and a disgrace. Either test it at the *advertised* wattage and if it passes point out that the label is too conservative, or test it at the advertised wattage, have it blow up in your face and shame the hell out of CM. Testing it at 500W because the labels says thats what it is is not acceptable when it is clearly being sold as a 550W. Even if what the CM rep says is true, that they're working on improving quality from the top down and need to revamp their lower end products, it doesn't excuse JG from not taking a stronger stand against deceptive advertising practices, even if the unit doesn't do a bad job. JG has failed to provide an objective assessment about whether or not this unit is actually a 500 or 550W psu, and thats just a bad job by an outfit I normally respect.
 
Last edited:
when just a few years before all I saw were brands like A1 and Enermax. That's progress, the stores actually stock quality supplies rather than just pushing the cheap stuff

I have no idea how bad A1's PSUs are but Enermax has been making decent quality PSUs ever since.
 
I completely agree with you. I've always trusted JG's PSU reviews highly, but what Oklahoma Wolf did in that review is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. The box has a giant 550W on it, but since the label said 500, thats all it was tested to. In my opinion that is a complete farce and a disgrace. Either test it at the *advertised* voltage and if it passes point out that the label is too conservative, or test it at the advertised wattage, have it blow up in your face and shame the hell out of CM. Testing it at 500W because the labels says thats what it is is not acceptable when it is clearly being sold as a 550W. Even if what the CM rep says is true, that they're working on improving quality from the top down and need to revamp their lower end products, it doesn't excuse JG from not taking a stronger stand against deceptive advertising practices, even if the unit doesn't do a bad job. JG has failed to provide an objective assessment about whether or not this unit is actually a 500 or 550W psu, and thats just a bad job by an outfit I normally respect.

Thing is, I get why he did it. That being said, he paid out of pocket for that unit...

What he should have done or should do...is add another page to that review where he tests it as a 550W unit like it is actually labeled. The CM rep claims, as well as Phaedrus does, to that it'll handle it fine....I want to see the data to back that up on a retail real unit.
 
I understand the logic as well... test the merits of the unit *as designed* and see whether the design is sound... and it looks like it is doesn't it? The thing is, that is almost an academic pursuit. Purchasing decisions of average consumers aren't made in a completely objective setting devoid of all marketing based on blinded analysis of PSU platform implementations, they're going to see "550" and assume that its a 550W product. Most of us on [H] probably buy oversized PSU's or buy based on specific platforms and ODM's, but to someone who doesn't know better, they might be pushing the limits. You're completely right and I would advocate testing at both its rated and advertised wattages. I believe [H] has done this for products in the past
 
I understand the logic as well... test the merits of the unit *as designed* and see whether the design is sound... and it looks like it is doesn't it? The thing is, that is almost an academic pursuit. Purchasing decisions of average consumers aren't made in a completely objective setting devoid of all marketing based on blinded analysis of PSU platform implementations, they're going to see "550" and assume that its a 550W product. Most of us on [H] probably buy oversized PSU's or buy based on specific platforms and ODM's, but to someone who doesn't know better, they might be pushing the limits. You're completely right and I would advocate testing at both its rated and advertised wattages. I believe [H] has done this for products in the past

I don't think there have been any other instances of the label on the PSU being different from the advertised wattage. I don't believe [H] does overload tests unless the label specifically provides for it. As far as I know, only Hardware Secrets does overload tests.

As for practices like this being a cancer in the industry... there will almost always be crooks. If retailers refuse to educate their customers properly, there will always be companies that do shady things. So in a sense, I would partially lay the blame on retailers for letting companies get away with practices like this.

Also, Enermax makes good PSUs. Not sure why they're lumped as cheap and low quality.
 
Ya know what's false advertising? The picture in the OP! Read for the fireball lulz, but gots no fireball lulz. Am disappoint. ;)
 
maybe he was thinking of Raidmax instead of Enermax....

I would like to see that PSU stress tested at 550w as well, but I do understand why he didn't do it. He plainly called out it was only rated at 485w /per the sticker. Pushing it to 550w would have just been knowingly overloading it.
I mean, even if it did blow up at 550w, I'm sure we would hear something like "well you should have read the label on the unit" and gave some BS story about the 550w not being for continuous usage. I don't blame him for not taking the chance on possibly messing up his testing equipment.

I have always taken most PSU power ratings with a grain of salt. The 75% rule seems pretty much on par with how lower grade PSU's are labeled and perform.

Anyone wanting to build a rock solid PC, hopefully has done their homework and knows that a solid high quality PSU is the heart of your system. It's not the place to skimp out for a cheaper lower quality part.
 
Had a feeling from the moment I saw the label on this unit it was going to be a damned if I do, damned if I don't exercise.

we were calling Oklahoma Wolf to deduct points off of a PSU that's been over-labled from his final scoring verdict.

You're the competition. The second I do something like that I have a dozen other company reps clogging my email and a ton of forum members complaining that I'm now biased toward Silverstone. It is not going to happen, for more than just that one reason, because I have integrity.

And that brings me to...

In my opinion that is a complete farce and a disgrace.

Since you've been so kind as to question my integrity in a public forum, allow me to make my position on my review abundantly clear.

Whenever there is a discrepancy between the box, manual, and label; I always go by the label. That's the way I've done it since day one, and I am not about to alter it. Had the combined 485W rating been absent, I'd have gone for the 550W number. But it was there.

Best I could do within the limits of my own integrity, given what I saw on the label, was to test via the label and use the rest of the review to point out that there was an issue there. I did that, so I'm sleeping just fine at night.

As always, people are free to disagree with my scoring methods. Just don't go looking for me to change them just because a few people dissent.

What he should have done or should do...is add another page to that review where he tests it as a 550W unit like it is actually labeled.

It's actually labeled as a 485-500W. It's rather deviously marketed, but that's what the numbers on the label say. Send me one without that 485W combined rating, and I'll be happy to re-test. Until then, it's not going to happen.

He plainly called out it was only rated at 485w /per the sticker. Pushing it to 550w would have just been knowingly overloading it.

Bingo! Like I said... damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Now, if y'all will excuse me, I have a 1200W unit to start heating up the lab with.
 
Had a feeling from the moment I saw the label on this unit it was going to be a damned if I do, damned if I don't exercise.

Yeah, sure looks like it.

Given that the argument has now spilled onto other forums, do you kind of wish you had reviewed a less controversial PSU? Might have made less of a stir if you had reviewed a religion or political party. xD

Might be worthwhile to have a policy of refusing to test/review any PSU that has mismatched labels, and simply report the labels without any testing of the unit at all. That way you're only revealing facts and staying out of the debate on how well it works. You wouldn't be called biased against them because you aren't calling it a bad supply or describing performance, and you wouldn't be called biased towards them because you still reported the discrepancy and that it didn't meet your standards for testing.
 
Our original post there wasn't calling for recalls of their PSUs, rather, we were calling Oklahoma Wolf to deduct points off of a PSU that's been over-labled from his final scoring verdict. We didn't think it was fair that just because their new reps said they were going to "right the ship" that they deserve a little slack when it came to scoring PSUs.

Our second post there was in response to CM rep's claim that they are willing to change for the better and that their PSU over-labeling was just a "typo."

Our business is hurt by what Cooler Master (and others) are doing in the market place. They are able to offer what appears to be lower priced PSUs than we can when a large part of that cost difference is down to over-rating/over-labeling their PSUs. Most budget buyers aren't as educated about PSUs to know. But sites such as JonnyGURU and HardOCP do have influence so more and more companies now learn to send their higher end models for review to gain positive brand recognition while continue to sell over-labeled models on the lower end. By not joining this practice, maybe we really are just too old-fashioned or not "flexible" enough (as some of our distributors and resellers like to call us) when it comes to selling our PSUs?

I'm sorry, the damage being done to the PSU marketplace has nothing to do with units like this from CM. This unit can provide what its rated for and more. Is it misleading? Sure. Advertising a low end unit with a peak number is pretty common though, and seeing as this unit can actually do the 550w on the box, you've got some much worse perpetrators then CM.

Brands like Logisys, Coolmax, Athena power, Diablotek, Raidmax, Apex, Apevia, etc etc etc are the ones doing the damage. When they sell a unit that says 500w that can barely output 300, that's when the market is hurt. When they sell units that almost burn down houses when they pop, that's when the market is hurt. When they sell units that take out all your precious data when they combust, that's when the market is hurt.

You're trying to make an example out of a competing company over a nitpick about what numbers on the box. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers when you too have had some pretty optimistic numbers on mediocre units. An 850w unit ODMd by Seventeam seems to come to mind.

http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story5&reid=164

Least the CM actually does the number on the box.
 
after reading the review and the thread, i concluded that there might be a case of mislabeled PSU, but no one proved that the reviewed unit could not deliver the promised capacity.

If i don't test a unit for 550w, how can i state that it is overrated?
 
Given that the argument has now spilled onto other forums, do you kind of wish you had reviewed a less controversial PSU?

No, not really. Goes with the territory... you can't really say no to doing things just because they might be uncomfortable ;)

Had I to do it all over again, I would change nothing.
 
Since you've been so kind as to question my integrity in a public forum, allow me to make my position on my review abundantly clear.

Whenever there is a discrepancy between the box, manual, and label; I always go by the label. That's the way I've done it since day one, and I am not about to alter it. Had the combined 485W rating been absent, I'd have gone for the 550W number. But it was there.

Best I could do within the limits of my own integrity, given what I saw on the label, was to test via the label and use the rest of the review to point out that there was an issue there. I did that, so I'm sleeping just fine at night.

As always, people are free to disagree with my scoring methods. Just don't go looking for me to change them just because a few people dissent.
I fully understand your internal logic, and even agree with it... to an extent. Heres the problem:

It's rather deviously marketed, but that's what the numbers on the label say
Yea, that "rather deviously marketed" part. If you buy this product in the store, you do not see the label before you purchase the product. All you see is a giant "550W" on the side of the box, then when you get home you open the box and you get "500W" on the label.... if you even look at the label in the first place. IMO, by only testing to the claim on a label that cannot be seen before purchase, you've basically reinforced their decision to mislabel the unit. When I read reviews, I don't read them to figure out if a company is delivering me 90% of the product I wanted well... I want to know that a company is delivering me 100% of the product they promised well. And heres the thing.... it might meet all specifications at 550W and maybe they really did just goof on the label! But we don't know because you didn't test it that way

I'm a bit disappointed that my first interaction with you, as a reviewer I hold in high regard ( i basically bought the 1300G2 based on your review), has to be this way, and I'm not questioning the validity of the results that you delivered... I just think that someone in your position is under a general obligation to be a consumer advocate, and that you failed to do that in this case.
 
I understand the logic as well... test the merits of the unit *as designed* and see whether the design is sound... and it looks like it is doesn't it? The thing is, that is almost an academic pursuit. Purchasing decisions of average consumers aren't made in a completely objective setting devoid of all marketing based on blinded analysis of PSU platform implementations, they're going to see "550" and assume that its a 550W product. Most of us on [H] probably buy oversized PSU's or buy based on specific platforms and ODM's, but to someone who doesn't know better, they might be pushing the limits. You're completely right and I would advocate testing at both its rated and advertised wattages. I believe [H] has done this for products in the past

I don't think there have been any other instances of the label on the PSU being different from the advertised wattage. I don't believe [H] does overload tests unless the label specifically provides for it. As far as I know, only Hardware Secrets does overload tests.

As for practices like this being a cancer in the industry... there will almost always be crooks. If retailers refuse to educate their customers properly, there will always be companies that do shady things. So in a sense, I would partially lay the blame on retailers for letting companies get away with practices like this.

Also, Enermax makes good PSUs. Not sure why they're lumped as cheap and low quality.

This is how we handle it:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/12/13/zalman_zm450us_450w_power_supply_review/

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/03/01/kingwin_lzp550_550w_power_supply_review/

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/18/kingwin_stryker_str500_power_supply_review

Sometimes it works out well and people get good reviews....some times it does not and they get bad reviews.
 
It's actually labeled as a 485-500W. It's rather deviously marketed, but that's what the numbers on the label say. Send me one without that 485W combined rating, and I'll be happy to re-test. Until then, it's not going to happen.



Bingo! Like I said... damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Now, if y'all will excuse me, I have a 1200W unit to start heating up the lab with.

My thought is damnit, the unit says 550W in Large Friendly Letters on the box, is listed as 550W in all literature not inside the box (i.e. all the literature aside from your review that a potential buyer can read before purchase)....Therefore it is a 550W and should see some testing as such. I go on NewEgg or Amazon or anywhere, hell you yourself bought that PSU retail and thought you were getting a 550W right up until you read the box of the unit....least that was what I got from your review

Good review as always from y'all...But the last step needs done, testing a "550W" PSU as 550W. Especially in light of a seemingly official CoolerMasterrep claiming it runs 550W fine no matter the wattage summation sticker.
 
But the last step needs done, testing a "550W" PSU as 550W.

Yeah, I am definitely curious to see how it would run at 550W, after all the talk/argument. My guess is that it wouldn't be able to handle 550 for an extended period of time. It might work for a few days, maybe even a week, but I do think that's far enough over the edge to shorten the lifespan significantly.

Since the original reviewer won't do it, perhaps someone else should get their hands on one and do the testing. There are a ton of review sites out there, and I'm surprised that none of the others have done their own review of this yet. This is a pretty good opportunity to test those claims, and attract curious people who want to see the tests that the other site wasn't willing to risk performing. If he doesn't want to risk damaging his equipment, he shouldn't have to do so. But there's no reason why someone else out there who can afford to take the risks can't get us the data.

I imagine all it would take is contributing some money to pay another reviewer for the cost of the PSU.
 
I imagine all it would take is contributing some money to pay another reviewer for the cost of the PSU.

Wolf makes the important point about maybe damaging the testing equipment, which I suppose is a real possibility?

I don't think there's probably insurance for that.
 
Wolf makes the important point about maybe damaging the testing equipment, which I suppose is a real possibility?

I don't think there's probably insurance for that.

We spend around $2000 or so a year on calibration, maintenance, and repair.
 
I completely agree with you. I've always trusted JG's PSU reviews highly, but what Oklahoma Wolf did in that review is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. The box has a giant 550W on it, but since the label said 500, thats all it was tested to. In my opinion that is a complete farce and a disgrace. Either test it at the *advertised* wattage and if it passes point out that the label is too conservative, or test it at the advertised wattage, have it blow up in your face and shame the hell out of CM. Testing it at 500W because the labels says thats what it is is not acceptable when it is clearly being sold as a 550W. Even if what the CM rep says is true, that they're working on improving quality from the top down and need to revamp their lower end products, it doesn't excuse JG from not taking a stronger stand against deceptive advertising practices, even if the unit doesn't do a bad job. JG has failed to provide an objective assessment about whether or not this unit is actually a 500 or 550W psu, and thats just a bad job by an outfit I normally respect.

QFT. I couldn't have said it better.

This is a disgraceful event for JG. Wolf should suck it up, change the score and issue an apology to us, the readers & enthusiasts.
The score should be lowered and a large paragraph about the ethics of mislabeling psus should be added to the conclusion. The label on the psu doesn't match the label on the box. From a consumer standpoint, I just got ripped off.

We may be a small crowd, but we have a big influence with people who come to us for computer advice.
 
Last edited:
Wolf makes the important point about maybe damaging the testing equipment, which I suppose is a real possibility?

I don't think there's probably insurance for that.

I guess if all the reviewers are too scared of damaging their test machine, it's pretty easy to slap together an old Core 2 Quad machine with a hot-running, overclocked video card from 6-7 years ago. Probably for less than $400, and those can eat more power than most modern machines.

I suppose the best way would be to try and find someone who would do the review for just the cost of the unit, or maybe who would be willing to accept a unit someone sent in for review. Then if no one is willing to take the risk, I guess that means you either have to offer a disposable computer that can draw a lot of power on top of it, or give up.
 
QFT. I couldn't have said it better.

This is a disgraceful event for JG. Wolf should suck it up, change the score and issue an apology to us, the readers & enthusiasts.
The score should be lowered and a large paragraph about the ethics of mislabeling psus should be added to the conclusion. The label on the psu doesn't match the label on the box. From a consumer standpoint, I just got ripped off.

We may be a small crowd, but we have a big influence with people who come to us for computer advice.

Wolf said it above. He has his testing methodology. You might not agree with it, but it's nothing to burn him at the stake for.

Also, as an enthusiast that's a member of a forum like this, you should never be buying an unknown quantity PSU. It doesn't matter if it's from Seasonic, or Corsair, or Enermax. Unknown PSUs that haven't been properly vetted should never be bought. The Coolermaster was an unknown quantity until this review came along. Thus, you would never have bought this PSU, and after doing the research on the PSU, you would have realized it's mislabeled. Also, Newegg's pictures clearly show the label.

I guess if all the reviewers are too scared of damaging their test machine, it's pretty easy to slap together an old Core 2 Quad machine with a hot-running, overclocked video card from 6-7 years ago. Probably for less than $400, and those can eat more power than most modern machines.

I suppose the best way would be to try and find someone who would do the review for just the cost of the unit, or maybe who would be willing to accept a unit someone sent in for review. Then if no one is willing to take the risk, I guess that means you either have to offer a disposable computer that can draw a lot of power on top of it, or give up.

The problem with that is you don't get accurate load numbers. You wouldn't know whether you were at 550 watt or not.
 
The problem with that is you don't get accurate load numbers. You wouldn't know whether you were at 550 watt or not.

Does that basically mean that there's no way to get the data if everyone's too scared to damage expensive equipment?

I'd kind of like to think there's a way to get those load numbers without spending thousands of dollars...
 
Also, as an enthusiast that's a member of a forum like this, you should never be buying an unknown quantity PSU. It doesn't matter if it's from Seasonic, or Corsair, or Enermax. Unknown PSUs that haven't been properly vetted should never be bought. The Coolermaster was an unknown quantity until this review came along. Thus, you would never have bought this PSU, and after doing the research on the PSU, you would have realized it's mislabeled. Also, Newegg's pictures clearly show the label.
You're right, anyone worth their salt wouldn't be buying this unit based on the first page of this review where he states its not actually a 550W PSU. My issue is that he doesn't go far enough to shame the manufacturer for the deceptive advertising that will lead uneducated consumers to purchase the unit. Sure, those people aren't going to read JG's review in the first place, but JG has enough review clout to make a point to the manufacturer and to their readers about unethical practices perpetrated by certain manufacturers. If they are publicly shamed the manufacturers will have to react to avoid tarnishing their brand
 
Back
Top