Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.hardware > #20633 > unrolled thread

Computer turns on and then just dies

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.hardware

Contents

  Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-21 16:19 +0100
    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Marco Moock <mm+solani@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-11-21 16:28 +0100
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-21 17:07 +0100
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-11-22 00:18 +0800
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-21 17:57 +0100
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-11-22 11:42 +0800
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-22 19:47 +0100
                Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:34 -0500
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-11-22 11:47 +0800
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-22 19:48 +0100
                Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2024-11-23 12:12 +0800
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-23 15:18 -0600
    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-21 16:35 +0100
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-21 12:43 -0600
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-22 19:56 +0100
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-22 17:32 -0600
    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-21 12:22 -0600
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-22 20:01 +0100
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-22 18:03 -0600
    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-21 15:58 -0500
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-21 23:28 -0600
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-22 07:24 -0500
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-22 10:20 -0600
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-23 12:09 +0100
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-23 07:07 -0500
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-24 17:12 +0100
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-24 15:21 -0500
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-25 14:58 +0100
                Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-25 17:33 -0500
                  Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-26 18:44 +0100
                    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-26 16:31 -0600
                      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-27 15:38 +0100
                    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-26 21:04 -0500
                      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-27 16:01 +0100
                        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-27 10:19 -0500
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-23 14:28 -0600
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-24 17:10 +0100
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-24 15:27 -0500
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-25 15:08 +0100
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-25 14:38 +0100
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-26 16:37 -0600
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-27 16:05 +0100
    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-24 16:51 +0100
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-24 16:03 -0500
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-25 15:03 +0100
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-25 18:09 -0500
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-30 12:28 +0100
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-27 15:45 +0100
    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-28 17:17 +0100
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-28 11:07 -0600
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-28 19:30 -0500
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-28 19:34 -0600
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-29 05:21 -0500
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-29 11:35 -0600
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-29 13:49 +0100
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-29 17:11 +0100
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-29 15:01 -0500
                Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-29 21:46 -0600
                Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-30 12:21 +0100
                  Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-30 09:15 -0600
                    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-30 17:16 +0100
                      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-30 17:40 -0500
                        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:43 +0100
                          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-02 14:15 -0600
                            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-02 21:19 +0100
                      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-01 08:26 -0600
                        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-01 13:23 -0500
                        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-02 11:40 +0100
                          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-02 14:06 -0600
                            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-02 21:30 +0100
                    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-11-30 11:31 -0500
                      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-11-30 12:22 -0600
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-11-29 12:46 +0100
    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-04 17:41 +0100
      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-04 14:14 -0600
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-04 18:28 -0500
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-05 09:30 -0600
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-05 11:11 -0500
        Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-06 17:43 +0100
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-06 17:45 +0100
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-06 16:46 -0600
              Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-07 14:11 +0100
                Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-07 09:46 -0600
                  Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-07 17:02 +0100
                    Re: Computer turns on and then just dies VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2024-12-07 11:40 -0600
                      Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-09 15:54 +0100
          Re: Computer turns on and then just dies Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-12-06 20:43 -0500
            Re: Computer turns on and then just dies "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-07 15:27 +0100

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#20694

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 09:15:48 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> FYI, Sharkoon doesn't manufacture anything.  They stick their brand on
> products made by others.  So does Corsair.

I've had good experiences with Corsair.

> You already bought the Sharkoon PSU.  Hopefully whomever is the actual
> OEM/mfr is a good one for whatever you get.  Sometimes you can see who
> is the OEM by looking inside the PSU case, but often the rebrander slaps
> their sticker atop the OEMs mark.

I don't want to be rude, but I just wanted a cheap PSU and I got one.
It's not much, but the 2 reviews it has are both 5 stars. Also, I'm in
Europe, so there's a minimum warranty of 2 years.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20697

On Sat, 11/30/2024 11:16 AM, s|b wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 09:15:48 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> FYI, Sharkoon doesn't manufacture anything.  They stick their brand on
>> products made by others.  So does Corsair.
> 
> I've had good experiences with Corsair.
> 
>> You already bought the Sharkoon PSU.  Hopefully whomever is the actual
>> OEM/mfr is a good one for whatever you get.  Sometimes you can see who
>> is the OEM by looking inside the PSU case, but often the rebrander slaps
>> their sticker atop the OEMs mark.
> 
> I don't want to be rude, but I just wanted a cheap PSU and I got one.
> It's not much, but the 2 reviews it has are both 5 stars. Also, I'm in
> Europe, so there's a minimum warranty of 2 years.
> 

It's a good idea, to try to track down who actually made it.

Of the survivors in the industry, I'd only be concerned if
it was a low-end ChannelWell CWT (based on my failures here).
I notice they have stopped putting "CWT" on the transformer inside.

No, don't open it up and look, as there may be a warranty-void
sticker over one of the screws that hold the cover on. You'll
have to keep the lid on the thing, until the warranty is expired
on it.

I prefer that power supplies keep the fan running, at low RPM.
Some supply designs, the fan only comes on at 50C. And that's
not a particularly clever thing to do. The caps have their
best lives... at room temperature. Not at 50C.

It's unlikely to be a PowMax-style "500W" one, so you
don't need to worry about that. I don't think the $20 PSU
makers, know how to build a double-forward conversion one :-)

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20701

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 17:40:45 -0500, Paul wrote:

> It's a good idea, to try to track down who actually made it.

You guys are on a whole other level than me.
 
> I prefer that power supplies keep the fan running, at low RPM.
> Some supply designs, the fan only comes on at 50C. And that's
> not a particularly clever thing to do. The caps have their
> best lives... at room temperature. Not at 50C.

Ah, I though every PSU runs all the time.
 
> It's unlikely to be a PowMax-style "500W" one, so you
> don't need to worry about that. I don't think the $20 PSU
> makers, know how to build a double-forward conversion one :-)

(-:

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20703

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 17:40:45 -0500, Paul wrote:
> 
>> I prefer that power supplies keep the fan running, at low RPM.
>> Some supply designs, the fan only comes on at 50C. And that's
>> not a particularly clever thing to do. The caps have their
>> best lives... at room temperature. Not at 50C.
> 
> Ah, I though every PSU runs all the time.

They vary, like chili at different restaurants.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20704

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:15:02 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> > Ah, I though every PSU runs all the time.
 
> They vary, like chili at different restaurants.

håhå (-:

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20698

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 09:15:48 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> FYI, Sharkoon doesn't manufacture anything.  They stick their brand on
>> products made by others.  So does Corsair.
> 
> I've had good experiences with Corsair.
> 
>> You already bought the Sharkoon PSU.  Hopefully whomever is the actual
>> OEM/mfr is a good one for whatever you get.  Sometimes you can see who
>> is the OEM by looking inside the PSU case, but often the rebrander slaps
>> their sticker atop the OEMs mark.
> 
> I don't want to be rude, but I just wanted a cheap PSU and I got one.
> It's not much, but the 2 reviews it has are both 5 stars. Also, I'm in
> Europe, so there's a minimum warranty of 2 years.

Wow, all of 2 reviews.  Were they by technically expertise sites
reviewing PSUs?  Or just some users reporting in less than a month that
what they got worked at that time in a hardware configuration they never
stated?  An example of a more technical review is shown at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USXefeaz4vM

At full load rating, 12V was just under the ATX spec.  At 110% load, the
PSU failed on 12V to meet the ATX spec.  Unfortunately many PSUs are not
overbuilt.  This reviewer didn't do sustained load testing to ensure the
PSU didn't burn up.

At 45 euro, you really think the warranty means anything?  It'll cost
you that, and probably a lot more, to ship the PSU back to Sparkoon,
plus the downtime.

80 Plus Bronze is not a great spec for a PSU.  OEMs are allowed to skew
the testing by letting them hand pick which units to test, and the spec
omits several key tests.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRpqGF2poJM

The less efficient the PSU, the more it has to dissipate for the same
load as a more efficient PSU.  Of course, with more efficiency comes a
higher price tag.  A hot PSU won't last as long.

Along with lower efficiency, and not knowing who really made (the OEM)
of the Sharkoon-branded PSU, is why I suggested running at a max load of
70% of the ratings on the sticker on the PSU case.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/what-80-plus-levels-mean,36721.html

Not saying what you bought is bad nor saying it is great.  With a
"Sharkoon" sticker on the inside, you don't know which OEM is inside.
You may not need to dismantle the PSU to check the OEM.  Use a
flashlight to peek through the fan and venting grills.  I could've
missed it at their web site, but didn't find anything there noting the
terms of their warranties.  I did find:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51OXHqTrbBS.pdf

With Sharkoon promoting themselves as a gamer's brand, the PSU you got
might be okay, but 80 Plus Bronze is at the bottom of that spec.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20699

On Sun, 12/1/2024 9:26 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 09:15:48 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, Sharkoon doesn't manufacture anything.  They stick their brand on
>>> products made by others.  So does Corsair.
>>
>> I've had good experiences with Corsair.
>>
>>> You already bought the Sharkoon PSU.  Hopefully whomever is the actual
>>> OEM/mfr is a good one for whatever you get.  Sometimes you can see who
>>> is the OEM by looking inside the PSU case, but often the rebrander slaps
>>> their sticker atop the OEMs mark.
>>
>> I don't want to be rude, but I just wanted a cheap PSU and I got one.
>> It's not much, but the 2 reviews it has are both 5 stars. Also, I'm in
>> Europe, so there's a minimum warranty of 2 years.
> 
> Wow, all of 2 reviews.  Were they by technically expertise sites
> reviewing PSUs?  Or just some users reporting in less than a month that
> what they got worked at that time in a hardware configuration they never
> stated?  An example of a more technical review is shown at:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USXefeaz4vM
> 
> At full load rating, 12V was just under the ATX spec.  At 110% load, the
> PSU failed on 12V to meet the ATX spec.  Unfortunately many PSUs are not
> overbuilt.  This reviewer didn't do sustained load testing to ensure the
> PSU didn't burn up.
> 
> At 45 euro, you really think the warranty means anything?  It'll cost
> you that, and probably a lot more, to ship the PSU back to Sparkoon,
> plus the downtime.
> 
> 80 Plus Bronze is not a great spec for a PSU.  OEMs are allowed to skew
> the testing by letting them hand pick which units to test, and the spec
> omits several key tests.  
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRpqGF2poJM
> 
> The less efficient the PSU, the more it has to dissipate for the same
> load as a more efficient PSU.  Of course, with more efficiency comes a
> higher price tag.  A hot PSU won't last as long.
> 
> Along with lower efficiency, and not knowing who really made (the OEM)
> of the Sharkoon-branded PSU, is why I suggested running at a max load of
> 70% of the ratings on the sticker on the PSU case.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/what-80-plus-levels-mean,36721.html
> 
> Not saying what you bought is bad nor saying it is great.  With a
> "Sharkoon" sticker on the inside, you don't know which OEM is inside.
> You may not need to dismantle the PSU to check the OEM.  Use a
> flashlight to peek through the fan and venting grills.  I could've
> missed it at their web site, but didn't find anything there noting the
> terms of their warranties.  I did find:
> 
> https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51OXHqTrbBS.pdf
> 
> With Sharkoon promoting themselves as a gamer's brand, the PSU you got
> might be okay, but 80 Plus Bronze is at the bottom of that spec.  
> 

Bronze is good enough. It doesn't have to be Gold.

The supplies have come a long way, in terms of thermals.
The old ones could be 60% to 70% efficient, and the heat
was just pouring out of them.

The machine across the way, I can't feel any heat coming out
of the PSU when it is doing a backup file compression run.
And that's a bit over 200W of wall power (measured on a
Kill-O-Watt meter).

My daily driver is using a Seasonic Bronze and there isn't usually
a heavy electrical load on that, and that's cool exhaust air
(and almost zero airflow at the moment). Power is 33 watts of wall
power at the moment.

Whereas you remember what the Pentium 4 era was like. The
airflow was higher. The temperature difference was palpable
and a sign of wasted power.

Any 80+ is better than a kick in the head, no matter
whether bronze, gold, platinum.

If you were gaming, and you had a RTX4090 and a 4K screen,
I'm pretty sure you'd feel a bit of heat on the PSU then.
My latest PSU, I don't know if it's even got enough
fan speed, to run at full load. The fan is that weak and sad.

If the power supply fan is too slow for your liking, you can
always keep the computer case pressurized so air will be forced
through it. That's what I've been trying to do on the machine
across the way, is use the case fans to keep the PSU situation
in check (make sure caps are kept cool in it).

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20700

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 08:26:39 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> At 45 euro, you really think the warranty means anything?  It'll cost
> you that, and probably a lot more, to ship the PSU back to Sparkoon,
> plus the downtime.

It'll cost me nothing and I'll either get a replacement or my money
back. I won't have to send anything to Sparkoon; that's the (Belgian)
shop's responsibility. I don't know how it works where you're at, but
that is how it's done over here.

> 80 Plus Bronze is not a great spec for a PSU.  OEMs are allowed to skew
> the testing by letting them hand pick which units to test, and the spec
> omits several key tests.  

The original PSU is 80 Plus Bronze as well. It worked without a problem
for /years/. Yes, it broke down eventually, but not while I was using
it. I left it unused in a cold room for years.
 
> With Sharkoon promoting themselves as a gamer's brand, the PSU you got
> might be okay, but 80 Plus Bronze is at the bottom of that spec.  

I asked for a cheap PSU and I got it. The main reason is that I want to
try out Linux and maybe rip some audio CD's since my main PC hasn't got
a CD/DVD writer, but the old one has. The main PC has the PSU at the
bottom and room for one writer at the top. Everything is wrapped away
nice and tidy. It'll be a PITA to install the writer in there; it's
easier to use the old PC. I have room to place 2 PCs next to each other
or I can use VNC or NoMachine.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20702

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 08:26:39 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:
> 
>> At 45 euro, you really think the warranty means anything?  It'll cost
>> you that, and probably a lot more, to ship the PSU back to Sparkoon,
>> plus the downtime.
> 
> It'll cost me nothing and I'll either get a replacement or my money
> back. I won't have to send anything to Sparkoon; that's the (Belgian)
> shop's responsibility. I don't know how it works where you're at, but
> that is how it's done over here.

Different in the USA regarding contract law.  The warranty is between
maker and consumer, not the shop.  The shop may have its own return
policy, like give a month to return and refund a defective product, but
odd they should be honoring the warranty for 2 years.  Nice shop there.

>> 80 Plus Bronze is not a great spec for a PSU.  OEMs are allowed to skew
>> the testing by letting them hand pick which units to test, and the spec
>> omits several key tests.  
> 
> The original PSU is 80 Plus Bronze as well. It worked without a problem
> for /years/. Yes, it broke down eventually, but not while I was using
> it. I left it unused in a cold room for years.

Doubt it was storage that broke the PSU, but critters could've gotten
inside.  Mice chew on everything.

My point is the lower the efficiency, the more heat produced in the PSU
for the same load.  Heat and electronics are enemies.

>> With Sharkoon promoting themselves as a gamer's brand, the PSU you got
>> might be okay, but 80 Plus Bronze is at the bottom of that spec.  
> 
> I asked for a cheap PSU and I got it. The main reason is that I want to
> try out Linux and maybe rip some audio CD's since my main PC hasn't got
> a CD/DVD writer, but the old one has. The main PC has the PSU at the
> bottom and room for one writer at the top. 

Likely the PSU draws outside air up from the bottom of the case, and
expels its heated air outside to the back.  That eliminates the PSU
heating up the interior of the case.  Presumably the back of the case
should be away from a wall or other obstruction to prevent the heated
exhaust from the PSU from circling around to the intake of the PSU.  My
next build will be that way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20705

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:06:33 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> Different in the USA regarding contract law.  The warranty is between
> maker and consumer, not the shop.  The shop may have its own return
> policy, like give a month to return and refund a defective product, but
> odd they should be honoring the warranty for 2 years.  Nice shop there.

The 30 days return policy is also in effect. But in case of warranty
they should offer at least 2 years; it's a EU rule. Sony however, got an
exception because there's only 1 year warranty on their controllers
(still 2 years for the console).
 
> Doubt it was storage that broke the PSU, but critters could've gotten
> inside.  Mice chew on everything.

I might have accidentally kicked it (not much room in there :-).
 
> My point is the lower the efficiency, the more heat produced in the PSU
> for the same load.  Heat and electronics are enemies.

I'm hoping the fan will do its part.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20695

On Sat, 11/30/2024 10:15 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 15:01:02 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>
>>> Technically, the PSU I'm currently using, has all the connectors
>>> I need, but because the wire won't bend nicely for the work,
>>> I am using two adapters, just to make plugging and unplugging
>>> two drives easier (the boot drive, the drive I'm "working on"
>>> as a technician machine). My optical drive is in an enclosure
>>> and runs off a wall wart, and I can move that to any machine not
>>> having an optical drive.
>>
>> I'm just going to go with the advice I got alternate.be. Told them what
>> the old PSU was and asked what to replace it with, considering I needed
>> at least 4 SATA connections. They advised this:
>>
>> <https://www.alternate.be/Sharkoon/SHP-Bronze-500-W-voeding/html/product/1586770>
>>
>> <https://assetscdn.loadbee.com/catalogue/zasu2wmd4974dnnm/www.sharkoon.com/Download//Cases_and_Power/PSU/SHP_Bronze/dmn_SHP-Bronze_04.pdf>
>>
>> <https://en.sharkoon.com/product/SHPBRONZE#specs>
>>
>> I just want ahead and ordered it (for about 45 euro).
> 
> FYI, Sharkoon doesn't manufacture anything.  They stick their brand on
> products made by others.  So does Corsair.  The quality of the rebranded
> product depends on the company putting their sticker on it as they
> decide the level of quality with which they are to be equated.  However,
> even within a rebrander, quality can vary based on product or models.
> Sharkoon puts their sticker on computer cases, illumination kits,
> keyboards, mice, CPU water coolers, mouse pads, keyboard wrist rests,
> drive bay adapters, cables, headsets, case fans, chairs, desks,
> backpacks, and, oh yes, power supplies.
> 
> Sharkoon rebrands PSUs from FSP and Enermax, but their QP and WPM series
> are from Channel Well (same OEM for Corsair CX series), and their Rush
> series are made by Enhance.  Unless you open the PSU case, you really
> don't know whose PSU you get from Sharkoon.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/power-supply-oem-manufacturer,2913-9.html
> 
> A decade old article, but gives you an idea that brands are not always
> the manufacturers (OEMs).  This article is old, and purchasing agents at
> rebranders often change who are their OEMs.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-psus,4229.html
> 
> An example of someone reviewing PSUs to determine quality.  In fact, I
> remember reading articles there where they test PSUs, like to determine
> if they can actually meet their rated specs, under sustained loads at
> specs rather then transient loads, what happens to the PSUs under
> testing (some burn up at rated specs), ripple voltage, and more.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/how-we-test-psu,4042.html
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/power-supplies-101,4193.html
> 
> You already bought the Sharkoon PSU.  Hopefully whomever is the actual
> OEM/mfr is a good one for whatever you get.  Sometimes you can see who
> is the OEM by looking inside the PSU case, but often the rebrander slaps
> their sticker atop the OEMs mark.
> 

The only ones I've had failures on, were the CWT (ChannelWell).

They have the usual spread, the low end is likely iffy, their
high end is better.

But after my experience, I'd really rather have someone else make the supply.

FSP (Fortron Sparkle), one of their characteristics, is the cable
length is "just barely enough". That's how you could tell one
of their OEMed units. I have one unit here branded "Sparkle"
and that might be FSP. The other thing about FSP, is their crossloading
spec, goes right out to the ATX spec max. They seemed to take
pride in doing that.

For a cheap one then, based on my failures here, I'd just want to
check whether they were ChannelWell or not. The FSP will be OK.
Enhance have made good stuff. Enermax, I've used a couple of those
for years (more than ten years).

We don't know who makes the $20 units. Those have all the protection
circuitry removed, and also the supply has no certifications (no TUV).
If such a supply has a 500W rating, then testing will show the
supply is actually a 350W unit. Attempts to draw 500W don't end well
in such a case. As a result, as long as you have some idea how
kit like that behaves, then go ahead, spend $20 on one :-)

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20696

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> We don't know who makes the $20 units. Those have all the protection
> circuitry removed, and also the supply has no certifications (no TUV).
> If such a supply has a 500W rating, then testing will show the
> supply is actually a 350W unit. Attempts to draw 500W don't end well
> in such a case. As a result, as long as you have some idea how
> kit like that behaves, then go ahead, spend $20 on one :-)

Or load it only to 70%, or even less, of its rated loads figuring they
bloated their ratings, especially regarding sustained loads.  Don't know
for sure which OEM is inside the PSU the OP got branded Sharkoon.  He
had a 350W PSU before, so me might not need more.  70% of the 500W
rating for Sharkoon puts it at 350W recommended which is close to the
380W rating for his old Antec PSU.

I don't recall spending less than $80 on a PSU.  Typically I'm well over
$100.  While I try to stay with FSP/Fortron/Sparkle and Enermax (and the
rebranders that use those as OEMs), and Corsair is generally okay as a
rebrander, I stay away from the low-end models even with the good OEMs
and rebranders.  I did once buy a $50 Corsair on sale ($85 list).  That
went into my prior build before I gave it to a family member 11 years
ago to replace a 6-yr old Dynapower (acquired by Sensata Tech in 2022
for $580M, but I haven't bothered to look into Sensata).  Dynapower was
not a good PSU OEM except for some models, so I researched the model to
find it had positive reviews (by tech sites, not so much for user
reviews since those are often too flaky and non-technical).  Even some
Corsairs aren't great.  I stay away from the bargain PSUs models.  I try
to build for an 8+ year lifespan, or longer, for my builds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20685

On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:07:29 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> After Paul responds, you might get away with just using a Y-adapter
> cable (aka power splitter): one sata power connector on one end, and
> multiple sata power connectors on the other end. 

That sounds interesting, but I'd rather have another PSU, so I can keep
using the other one for my even older PC.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20706

On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:19:46 +0100, s|b wrote:

> I've got a computer I haven't used for some time. I took out a hdd (D:)
> and left it alone. I'm trying to get it to work again, but it just dies
> on me.

Today I installed the new PSU and everything is working fine, even the
SATA hdd that was giving me problems in my SATA HDD/SSD USB docking
station.

Not only that, I also learned some new things. So thanks again Paul and
VanguardLH!

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20707

s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:19:46 +0100, s|b wrote:
> 
>> I've got a computer I haven't used for some time. I took out a hdd (D:)
>> and left it alone. I'm trying to get it to work again, but it just dies
>> on me.
> 
> Today I installed the new PSU and everything is working fine, even the
> SATA hdd that was giving me problems in my SATA HDD/SSD USB docking
> station.
> 
> Not only that, I also learned some new things. So thanks again Paul and
> VanguardLH!

Since you replaced the CPU's thermal paste, you should probably employ a
temperature monitor to watch the CPU temperature for a while.

https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-check-cpu-temp-temperature

Mentions AIDA64, but I thought that got abandoned.  Just looked at:

https://www.aida64.com/online-store

Okay, so it became payware, and why I stopped using it.  It's free, but
requires payment to "unlock the full potential".  Maybe they crippled
the full version back when I was using it to then paywall the advanced
features, and why I stopped using it.  It was all free, and then
crippled so only some of it was free.  There were other free choices.

CoreTemp shows you temps when you manually instigate investigation.  It
doesn't remain resident to issue alerts when temps get too high.  Be
careful during installation, though, as I've read it defaults to
installing bloatware.  Deselect some checkboxes during installation.

I did use Speedfan on an old build.  Primarily because there was a fault
on the mobo that prevented the BIOS controlling speed fans, so I used
Speedfan which worked, anyway.  When booted, the CPU and case fans ran
at full speed which made more noise, but that lasted only until Speedfan
got loaded after Windows startup.  It had temperature monitoring, too,
but I don't recall if it alerted you to overly high temps.  It wasn't
needed in my next and current build (c.2019).

There is CPU-Z, but doesn't show temperatures.  However, the same author
has HWMonitor (https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html).  Because
I have CPU-Z installed, I also have HWMonitor installed.  Takes a while
to load.  It will report current temperatures, but not log a history of
temperatures to see both present and past readings.

I've never used Open Hardware Monitor (https://openhardwaremonitor.org/)
but it looks similar to HWMonitor.

Pirform's Speccy also reports temps.  Piriform was acquired by Avast who
immediately turned Piriform's CCleaner into spamware, but firewall rules
can neuter it.  Doesn't look like Avast spammified the other Piriform
products.

After a new build or change, I'll monitor temps for awhile.  So, having
to manually check periodically is okay instead of having something
always running that keeps a history of temperature readings (which I'd
still have to manually go check).  Something that logs a history of temp
readings along with alerting on overtemps would be preferable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20708

On Wed, 12/4/2024 3:14 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> s|b <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 16:19:46 +0100, s|b wrote:
>>
>>> I've got a computer I haven't used for some time. I took out a hdd (D:)
>>> and left it alone. I'm trying to get it to work again, but it just dies
>>> on me.
>>
>> Today I installed the new PSU and everything is working fine, even the
>> SATA hdd that was giving me problems in my SATA HDD/SSD USB docking
>> station.
>>
>> Not only that, I also learned some new things. So thanks again Paul and
>> VanguardLH!
> 
> Since you replaced the CPU's thermal paste, you should probably employ a
> temperature monitor to watch the CPU temperature for a while.
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/how-to/how-to-check-cpu-temp-temperature
> 
> Mentions AIDA64, but I thought that got abandoned.  Just looked at:
> 
> https://www.aida64.com/online-store
> 
> Okay, so it became payware, and why I stopped using it.  It's free, but
> requires payment to "unlock the full potential".  Maybe they crippled
> the full version back when I was using it to then paywall the advanced
> features, and why I stopped using it.  It was all free, and then
> crippled so only some of it was free.  There were other free choices.
> 
> CoreTemp shows you temps when you manually instigate investigation.  It
> doesn't remain resident to issue alerts when temps get too high.  Be
> careful during installation, though, as I've read it defaults to
> installing bloatware.  Deselect some checkboxes during installation.
> 
> I did use Speedfan on an old build.  Primarily because there was a fault
> on the mobo that prevented the BIOS controlling speed fans, so I used
> Speedfan which worked, anyway.  When booted, the CPU and case fans ran
> at full speed which made more noise, but that lasted only until Speedfan
> got loaded after Windows startup.  It had temperature monitoring, too,
> but I don't recall if it alerted you to overly high temps.  It wasn't
> needed in my next and current build (c.2019).
> 
> There is CPU-Z, but doesn't show temperatures.  However, the same author
> has HWMonitor (https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html).  Because
> I have CPU-Z installed, I also have HWMonitor installed.  Takes a while
> to load.  It will report current temperatures, but not log a history of
> temperatures to see both present and past readings.
> 
> I've never used Open Hardware Monitor (https://openhardwaremonitor.org/)
> but it looks similar to HWMonitor.
> 
> Pirform's Speccy also reports temps.  Piriform was acquired by Avast who
> immediately turned Piriform's CCleaner into spamware, but firewall rules
> can neuter it.  Doesn't look like Avast spammified the other Piriform
> products.
> 
> After a new build or change, I'll monitor temps for awhile.  So, having
> to manually check periodically is okay instead of having something
> always running that keeps a history of temperature readings (which I'd
> still have to manually go check).  Something that logs a history of temp
> readings along with alerting on overtemps would be preferable.
> 

CPU-Z, you can go to the About tab, and there is an option to Save as Text.

Open the file, which is MachineName.txt , and have a look.

For well known methods (CoreTemp on Intel, Infinite Fabric on AMD),
those methods can be used to report the current temperature when the report
was saved.

This is not a "convenient method", but it is a method, and it
is useful when no other method has a driver for the Hardware Monitor
or whatever.

https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

   Classic Versions

      ZIP * English    <=== The ZIP is a Portable version

  Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20709

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 12/4/2024 3:14 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> After a new build or change, I'll monitor temps for awhile.  So,
>> having to manually check periodically is okay instead of having
>> something always running that keeps a history of temperature
>> readings (which I'd still have to manually go check).  Something
>> that logs a history of temp readings along with alerting on
>> overtemps would be preferable.
> 
> CPU-Z, you can go to the About tab, and there is an option to Save as
> Text.
> 
> Open the file, which is MachineName.txt , and have a look.

But *I* would have to keep repeatedly saving the current statistics, and
into different log files to merge together to get a history of
temperatures.  No thanks.  That's like me standing somewhere taking
repeated pics of some scene to create a slide show rather than plant a
camera on a tripod that is scheduled to automatically take pics of the
same spot.  I'd rather have software do the chore than me doing the
mundane task.

I know I've seen a program that retained a history of temperatures.  I
use HD Sentinel which includes monitoring temps of drives, and it has a
history.  But not of the CPU, GPU, or memory modules.

> This is not a "convenient method", but it is a method, and it
> is useful when no other method has a driver for the Hardware Monitor
> or whatever.

Pretty much dictates that after booting into the OS that I would be
preoccupied with repeatedly saving to a log what are the current
readings.

I mentioned using SpeedFan (https://www.almico.com/speedfan.php)
primarily to control CPU and case fan speeds (on a defective mobo).
SpeedFan does have an option to log history into a file.  It's been 5
years, or more, since I last used SpeedFan, so I forgot it had the
logging feature.  Main window -> Configure -> Log tab, select Enabled
checkbox, Temperatures tab, select the temp you want to log, and select
the Logged checkbox.  I don't have it installed to check if that navpath
is still correct.  As I recall, I remember using temp and fan speed
history in Speedfan shown as a chart to determine what happened when I
played a game, or for some other event in which I was curious how it
might affect temps and speeds, and how fast those would accelerate or
decelerate after the event.

From a 7-year old forum post, someone said Open Hardware Monitor
(https://openhardwaremonitor.org/) has Options -> Log Sensors that will
automatically save all sensor data as a function of time at an interval
you select into a dated file into the same folder as where is the
executable for the program.  Could run afoul of Windows 7+ protection
keeping programs and program data in separate paths, so you might have
to run OHM in a folder other than under C:\Program Files [(x86)].

So, some temp monitors can log a history of temps.  I'm sure there are
more than those I mentioned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20710

On Thu, 12/5/2024 10:30 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 12/4/2024 3:14 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> After a new build or change, I'll monitor temps for awhile.  So,
>>> having to manually check periodically is okay instead of having
>>> something always running that keeps a history of temperature
>>> readings (which I'd still have to manually go check).  Something
>>> that logs a history of temp readings along with alerting on
>>> overtemps would be preferable.
>>
>> CPU-Z, you can go to the About tab, and there is an option to Save as
>> Text.
>>
>> Open the file, which is MachineName.txt , and have a look.
> 
> But *I* would have to keep repeatedly saving the current statistics, and
> into different log files to merge together to get a history of
> temperatures.  No thanks.  That's like me standing somewhere taking
> repeated pics of some scene to create a slide show rather than plant a
> camera on a tripod that is scheduled to automatically take pics of the
> same spot.  I'd rather have software do the chore than me doing the
> mundane task.
> 
> I know I've seen a program that retained a history of temperatures.  I
> use HD Sentinel which includes monitoring temps of drives, and it has a
> history.  But not of the CPU, GPU, or memory modules.
> 
>> This is not a "convenient method", but it is a method, and it
>> is useful when no other method has a driver for the Hardware Monitor
>> or whatever.
> 
> Pretty much dictates that after booting into the OS that I would be
> preoccupied with repeatedly saving to a log what are the current
> readings.
> 
> I mentioned using SpeedFan (https://www.almico.com/speedfan.php)
> primarily to control CPU and case fan speeds (on a defective mobo).
> SpeedFan does have an option to log history into a file.  It's been 5
> years, or more, since I last used SpeedFan, so I forgot it had the
> logging feature.  Main window -> Configure -> Log tab, select Enabled
> checkbox, Temperatures tab, select the temp you want to log, and select
> the Logged checkbox.  I don't have it installed to check if that navpath
> is still correct.  As I recall, I remember using temp and fan speed
> history in Speedfan shown as a chart to determine what happened when I
> played a game, or for some other event in which I was curious how it
> might affect temps and speeds, and how fast those would accelerate or
> decelerate after the event.
> 
> From a 7-year old forum post, someone said Open Hardware Monitor
> (https://openhardwaremonitor.org/) has Options -> Log Sensors that will
> automatically save all sensor data as a function of time at an interval
> you select into a dated file into the same folder as where is the
> executable for the program.  Could run afoul of Windows 7+ protection
> keeping programs and program data in separate paths, so you might have
> to run OHM in a folder other than under C:\Program Files [(x86)].
> 
> So, some temp monitors can log a history of temps.  I'm sure there are
> more than those I mentioned.
> 

I'm sure you're aware at the moment, that Microsoft has a hate-on for
"drivers", such as the driver that Speedfan uses. Similarly,
I had installed some copy of Asus AISuite (which includes hardware
monitor info), and the driver for that is blacklisted. A notification
will appear on your screen, telling you to remove it. Any driver
of the "exploit-able" type, is getting this treatment.

The developers knew long ago, that this would be an issue.
At one time, it might have been "giveio.sys", which was used
to break through the admin-only protection on access to
hardware. Well, that kind of thing has caught up to us,
and various things are either getting damaged or they're
getting blacklisted.

This is why, it's fine to quote historical references to all
the tools we used to use. but nobody is keeping track
of the tools that raise a "nasty-gram" on the user screen.
I can't keep track of all these. But I *have* been surprised,
when software I installed, then removed, left a bloody driver
behind (the exploit type), and NOW Microsoft is pointing
these things out to me. At first I'm incredulous - "where
did this come from?". Typically, the utility was installed
in Windows 7, I did a W10-over-W7 install, and the file
is *still* in the System32 folder in Win10. It was actually
an artifact from windows 7 days.

This means, if I happen to test something in the last ten
minutes, and the OS doesn't find fault with it... I'm likely
to create a reference to it in a posting. I can't be sure
what the disposition of Speedfan is. Speedfan development
stopped. The new SuperIO and their hardware monitor section,
there's no code in Speedfan for them. There is none in Linux
for my new motherboards either. And also, some of
the ACPI objects don't have the right name, so even if
a utility can figure out something is there, there is
nothing that says "item number five is the motherboard temperature".
I have a few items in the hardware monitor, which appear to be
"bogus", but I can't really be sure they're not inputs.

So really, the computer is now just as bad as it was in MBM5 days.
It's degraded to that point. In MBM5 days, each motherboard
was custom developed, users would provide raw readings, the
dev would work up a prototype, the user would feed back
whether the readings made sense. And so on. That was
before some of these items had info added to ACPI, to
bypass the "giveio.sys" issue.

It's just a constant mess. Only individual humans have
allowed us to make forward progress. When they disappear,
we fall back into the soup of ignorance.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20711

On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:14:07 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

> CoreTemp shows you temps when you manually instigate investigation.  It
> doesn't remain resident to issue alerts when temps get too high.  Be
> careful during installation, though, as I've read it defaults to
> installing bloatware.  Deselect some checkboxes during installation.

That can't be right?

<https://ibb.co/mvRw8Yn>

(BIOS said something around 26°C.)

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20712

On Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:43:30 +0100, s|b wrote:

> (BIOS said something around 26°C.)

Rebooted and checked BIOS again: 33°C.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.hardware

csiph-web