BonzaiDuck
Lifer
In several posts here, I have referred to two PSU reviews conducted by Maximum PC magazine (January, 2005) and Tech Report:
Tech Report: Eight Power Supplies Compared
Let me summarize the "gist" of what I said earlier. PC Power & Cooling is a major advertisement account for Maximum PC. PC P& C refused to participate in the Tech Report review. The Tech Report review examined several laboratory measures of performance, including DC rail variation and AC ripple voltages. They even collected data on CPU temperatures using the same test bed, under the same room temperatures, for each of the PSU's studied. Among those scrutinized by Tech Report were the Antec NeoPower 480 and the OCZ PowerStream 520. But not the Turbo Cool 510.
Maximum PC also looked at the NeoPower and the PowerStream, as well as the Turbo Cool. And it appeared that they chose to rate PSUs according the the criteria of the moment: they ignored a discussion of efficiency in the case of the OCZ, choosing to hype the NeoPower on that basis. Not much credit was given to OCZ for its sturdy shielded cables which provided a type of modularity providing a compatible bridge to ATX, BTX, EPX, PCI-x -- just about every existing and ascendant standard and form-factor. But they hyped the popular concept of modularity incorporated into the Antec and other PSUs, choosing to footnote the Turbo Cool's rating with a criticism that it doesn't provide that modularity. They slammed the OCZ model because one of the rails was outside the adjustment tolerance in the sample that OCZ shipped for testing, but gave no points for the PSU's voltage adjustment features or the high degree of stability for those rails shown in the Tech Report results.
It almost seemed that Maximum PC gave top honors to the Neopower so that it could feature the PCP&C Turbo Cool in second-place with a "kick-ass" award.
Now comes the February issue of the magazine, and a response by PCP&C CEO Doug Dodson, who objects to the "9" out of "10" rating for the Turbo Cool on various grounds, among them those which I have cited earlier as a drawback to the type of "modular cabling" featured with the ULTRA X-Connect and other PSUs: He says: "Pros specify straight wire. They know extra connectors add resistance, limit power, and create a failure point caused by burned or loose pins."
He goes on to say that the testing conditions provided by Maximum PC were not adequate to fully stress the PSUs' ability to hold their wattage at higher temperatures -- a feature in which the Turbo Cool supposedly excels.
Senior Editor Gordon Mah Ung responds with a mild apology, acknowledging the legitimacy of Dodson's points, but defending tooth and nail the laboratory conditions and controls for testing the reviewed models.
So what am I trying to say here? I come not to bury Turbo Cool, nor to praise it, for it needeth no praise from the likes of me. Instead, I want to suggest that the sequence of articles, the review followed by the CEO's letter, the mumbo-jumbo of inconsistently applied criteria in the review -- it all looks so orchestrated, as if to say "Don't think that we 'have' to make the Turbo Cool look good, but please don't take notice that they are a major advertising account. And just in case you suspect something, here's a letter from the PCP&C's top exec baring his offended breast and carping about getting a 9-out-of-10 Kick-Ass award."
In this way, you have the PCP&C Exec weighing in on behalf of exactly the type of cabling arrangement provided with the OCZ model, but they can do it after the fact of the review without even calling the public's attention to OCZ. And who's the new boy on the block? Who is the N + 1th entrant in a market previously at equilibrium with only N competitors? It is OCZ. Of course, you could argue "Why gee, whiz -- OCZ isn't a 'new entrant' -- because their power supply is manufactured by TOPOWER -- an established PSU maker." But the point here is that it isn't a TOPOWER that is being marketed: it is an OCZ model specially manufactured for OCZ by TOPOWER, with features specified by OCZ. So it really is the "N + 1th" competitor -- the "new boy on the block."
The Maximum PC PSU review provides much in the way of useful information. A clearer picture arises by adding that information to the results provided by the Tech Report and other reviews. And the fact that PCP&C declined to participate in the Tech Report review has some significance, too. It isn't some disconnected fact void of any "implications".
As for the ratings -- perhaps the more scrupulous reader-enthusiasts should take the same information and apply their own weighted rating system.
Tech Report: Eight Power Supplies Compared
Let me summarize the "gist" of what I said earlier. PC Power & Cooling is a major advertisement account for Maximum PC. PC P& C refused to participate in the Tech Report review. The Tech Report review examined several laboratory measures of performance, including DC rail variation and AC ripple voltages. They even collected data on CPU temperatures using the same test bed, under the same room temperatures, for each of the PSU's studied. Among those scrutinized by Tech Report were the Antec NeoPower 480 and the OCZ PowerStream 520. But not the Turbo Cool 510.
Maximum PC also looked at the NeoPower and the PowerStream, as well as the Turbo Cool. And it appeared that they chose to rate PSUs according the the criteria of the moment: they ignored a discussion of efficiency in the case of the OCZ, choosing to hype the NeoPower on that basis. Not much credit was given to OCZ for its sturdy shielded cables which provided a type of modularity providing a compatible bridge to ATX, BTX, EPX, PCI-x -- just about every existing and ascendant standard and form-factor. But they hyped the popular concept of modularity incorporated into the Antec and other PSUs, choosing to footnote the Turbo Cool's rating with a criticism that it doesn't provide that modularity. They slammed the OCZ model because one of the rails was outside the adjustment tolerance in the sample that OCZ shipped for testing, but gave no points for the PSU's voltage adjustment features or the high degree of stability for those rails shown in the Tech Report results.
It almost seemed that Maximum PC gave top honors to the Neopower so that it could feature the PCP&C Turbo Cool in second-place with a "kick-ass" award.
Now comes the February issue of the magazine, and a response by PCP&C CEO Doug Dodson, who objects to the "9" out of "10" rating for the Turbo Cool on various grounds, among them those which I have cited earlier as a drawback to the type of "modular cabling" featured with the ULTRA X-Connect and other PSUs: He says: "Pros specify straight wire. They know extra connectors add resistance, limit power, and create a failure point caused by burned or loose pins."
He goes on to say that the testing conditions provided by Maximum PC were not adequate to fully stress the PSUs' ability to hold their wattage at higher temperatures -- a feature in which the Turbo Cool supposedly excels.
Senior Editor Gordon Mah Ung responds with a mild apology, acknowledging the legitimacy of Dodson's points, but defending tooth and nail the laboratory conditions and controls for testing the reviewed models.
So what am I trying to say here? I come not to bury Turbo Cool, nor to praise it, for it needeth no praise from the likes of me. Instead, I want to suggest that the sequence of articles, the review followed by the CEO's letter, the mumbo-jumbo of inconsistently applied criteria in the review -- it all looks so orchestrated, as if to say "Don't think that we 'have' to make the Turbo Cool look good, but please don't take notice that they are a major advertising account. And just in case you suspect something, here's a letter from the PCP&C's top exec baring his offended breast and carping about getting a 9-out-of-10 Kick-Ass award."
In this way, you have the PCP&C Exec weighing in on behalf of exactly the type of cabling arrangement provided with the OCZ model, but they can do it after the fact of the review without even calling the public's attention to OCZ. And who's the new boy on the block? Who is the N + 1th entrant in a market previously at equilibrium with only N competitors? It is OCZ. Of course, you could argue "Why gee, whiz -- OCZ isn't a 'new entrant' -- because their power supply is manufactured by TOPOWER -- an established PSU maker." But the point here is that it isn't a TOPOWER that is being marketed: it is an OCZ model specially manufactured for OCZ by TOPOWER, with features specified by OCZ. So it really is the "N + 1th" competitor -- the "new boy on the block."
The Maximum PC PSU review provides much in the way of useful information. A clearer picture arises by adding that information to the results provided by the Tech Report and other reviews. And the fact that PCP&C declined to participate in the Tech Report review has some significance, too. It isn't some disconnected fact void of any "implications".
As for the ratings -- perhaps the more scrupulous reader-enthusiasts should take the same information and apply their own weighted rating system.
