I think the thread above illustrates that point. He said that ALL
PSUs perform *poorly* on dynamic tests. Such is simply not the case,
but he is jabbing and weaving, refusing to admit it. Oh well...
Nope, no weave.. A specific context was written, I replied,
you disagreed, and now you think that if we disagree then I
will eventually try to turn around and agree with you in
some subtle way. I don't.
So clearly it is not anything like a weave, but now you
muddy the waters with silly attempts at a personal attack
instead of just sticking on topic.
If you try really really hard, possibly you can focus on
what WAS written instead of trying to make up something to
argue about, instead of trying to imply I meant more, or
other, than was written. If you GUESS I meant something I
didn't write, that's your own fault. If I then write more,
and it doesn't go along with what you had just GUESSED,
instead of what I wrote, your own mind has played a trick on
you but my stance on the topic remained static.
Would you like an example?
I recall you like PC Power & Cooling. OP wants a quiet PSU,
let's look at the specs for a Silencer 360, since it is near
the same price-point and should be adequate for the system.
Here's the spec sheet,
http://www.pcpowercooling.com/products/assets/S36ATX/specs.pdf
What do they spec? 1V p-p. When?
On a static load? No, it can easily do far better on a
static load, only load dynamics require such a high 1V spec.
How about efficiency? Did you think a PSU "must" score
around 74% if designed for a static load? Absolutely not.
That would be horrendous efficiency for a switcher designed
for a static load, but entirely plausable for one handling
dynamic loads.
Regulation, 5% and 10%. If they could reliably guarantee it
was always an order of magnitude less, they would do it.
Why can't they? It has to be spec'd for the intended use,
in a system that is a dynamic load.
Could someone hook it up to a system and perform one kind of
isolated test and find it less than 5 or 10% off? Of
course, and OTHER tests may deviate more... which is WHY
they don't try to lie and only mention best-case scenarios
instead of the truth.
Do you not realize that any bottom of the barrel generic can
legitimately claim less than 5 or 10% if it were only a
static load?
PC Power & Cooling makes some very good units, I'm not
trying to suggest otherwise but rather it was an example
from a company you seem to have liked, and they accept same
thing I wrote, that the dynamic loads DO result in worse
regulation on ALL of them.
That is just the tip of the iceburg though, the real issue
in many cases is the effect on the capacitors, the
performance of a part that has no need for bells, whistles,
or neon, has everything to do with whether it keeps working
instead of failing. It IS a performance parameter. One can
burn a candle at both ends but is it a high performance
candle or just one that burnt out fast? MTBF is yet another
PSU spec, they are all taken in context, not apart.
As I've written too many times to count, a short term test
is not a validating one, it only finds faults. Accelerated
wear is a poor performance index, and relative to a static
load, all PSU perform poorly.
Or to put it another way, we're contrasting static with
dynamic, so we're contrasting the same unit's accuracy when
static, vs. dynamically loaded. I did write RELATIVE
previously though, even capitalized and you still missed it.
My most expensive Antec was $15, including the