Corsair's 620 W 90% efficient PSU

[Babrbarossa]

"HOW MUCH POWER do you actually need to run two water-cooled Socket 1207 CPUs at 3.0 GHz each, two overclocked Nvidia GeForce 8800GTS graphics cards, 150GB Raptor drive and 4GB of memory clocked at a fast 1GHz PC2-8000 clock?
If you ask around the show, you will get answers ranging from 850 to 1200 watts, but engineers at Corsair managed to produce incredibly efficient power supply. Rated at only 620 watts, this one offers nearly 90% efficiency and is able to support four hot chips, ton of memory and Raptor hard drives. Even the water-cooling setup is powered by that puny PSU.z"

More from the Inquirer

[Patriote]

I have heard about that PSU a few time in the past that it could power up some of most power hungry Rig out there but never really thought it could. And The Inquirer doesn't give me more results (if not by that little pic) that what ive seen so far.

[SKYMTL]

And the Inquirer dishes out more BS....

This PSU barely comes close to 85% let alone 90%.

but engineers at Corsair managed to produce incredibly efficient power supply.

Oh.....my......GOD.

It is articles like these that just feed people misinformation about power supplies.

I vote to ban Inquirer links from the forums.

I'm dead serious.

[Patriote]

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

And the Inquirer dishes out more BS....

This PSU barely comes close to 85% let alone 90%.



Oh.....my......GOD.

It is articles like these that just feed people misinformation about power supplies.

I vote to ban Inquirer links from the forums.

I'm dead serious.

Hahah! And he's dead serious!

[Brenda]

I honestly don't see the point of posting rumors, etc., unless you're here to debunk them? Is that what usually happens? Or is it to just "let everyone know what's out there"?????

[Babrbarossa]

The Inquirer is one of the most read tech site son the web and they, are more often than anyone, the first to get their grubby little hands on juicy tidbits of tech news, and they know how to present it in an entertaining way- and while they are often a little off center on their stories, they make no claims to be Reuters- we're not talking about medical research here- it's entertainment and to take it too seriously is to drain it of enjoyment- most of the time if I post something from the Inquirer, I acknowledge that it's suspect- sometimes if I'm rushed and it's something as trivial as whether a power supply is 85% or 90% (and they say ALMOST 90%) efficient, I won't bother, and I'll leave it up to the "experts" to refute it- after all that's what keeps the experts entertained- pointing out everyone else's mistakes. So what fun would it be for the experts if they didn't have a little fallacy to poop on once in a while?

I will make sure I keep them in the Rumours Section where I usually put them- that was my mistake.

[SKYMTL]

That isn't the point. My point is that most of their information is downright lies. Heck, it is a stretch to even call them a tech site.

What they do is GUESS and sometimes they get it right. I have a nice little folder in my favorites where I put all the BS I have found on their site.

Here are a few tidbits:

PS3 games to cost $100USD
PS3 to be released in 2007
ATI to be bought by Intel
ATI R600 to consume 350W
ATI Next-Gen Beast to use Water Cooling
Nvidia G80 Launch to have limited availability

Need I go on? They quote "sources" and "industry insiders" even though they are looking more and more like they have none. Remember the story of them doctoring "exclusive" Rydermark screenshots? Or how about when Fuad got kicked out of CeBit for being a punk and then posted other site's images as his own?

I could go on and on but I think I have made my point.

[Babrbarossa]

Hmm....sounds like you're an avid reader of the Inquirer.

You should take more advantage of thelink they place at the bottom of every story "Flame the Author"

They are definately cavalier about the news and they make no pretence about it- This is a Quote from their policy page:

"Unless we're writing a nonsense piece, because we feel our job is to entertain as well as to inform."

But the thing is that EVERYONE (including you too, apparently) watches their page to see what they've dug up- To banish their stories- even from our Rumours section is extreme- especially when there are plenty of experts like you around here that won't hesitate to cooly point out where the article went astray. I try my best to be selective about what I glean from there to avoid linking to something that is B.S. and each week I'm learning more, but with a total of three months experience I'll have to trust that others like you won't hesitate to comment on anything you see that offends your sensibilities until I am more seasoned. It's fine to link reviews all day long, but one can only read so many of them in a day without getting bored stiff.

[SKYMTL]

Originally Posted by Babrbarossa

You should take advantage of thelink they place at the bottom of every story "Flame the Author"

Now THAT is a waste of time. I read them for laughs...and that's it. For my daily tech news, I go to The Register or Dailytech.

[Gav]

I don't mind if content from the Inquirer get's posted here in the Rumours section. To me it's irrelevent if the info is true or not. The article made me aware that Corsair had a new power supply out and that's all I needed to know.

Half the time I only read the title if it's from the Inquirer and then on to the manufacturers site or a reputable review/news site for more info.