Does Silverstone offer any lower wattage Decathlons of the same type as this reviewed model, i.e., with the same very quiet characteristics? 700 watts is just way more power than I can imagine needing for a music server/home theatre PC.
And, I didn't understand why Silverstone and Impervio were considered to be unlikely partners. Can anyone shed a bit of light on that remark?
Finally (and least), I think this sentence on the first page is missing a word, "However, with this new Decathlon Silverstone is trying a different approach from what we have previously [seen?]."
Silverstone does have the ELEMENT series with 400 watts which is very nice as well.
The remark on Silverstone and Impervio was made because I said once that Impervio was formed by Silverstone. I then had major complaints from Impervio coming in since there were companies wanting to stop working with them if they belonged to Silverstone.
Based on the review title, I'd expected to see some comparison data. Maybe the PCP&C Silencer 750 and the Zalman HP-700 units would be good to compare if having ample power in a quiet package. Sure, this review has quantitative SPL results but it would be nice to see an actual, real-time comparison. You know, like science typically does.
Your methodology claims a 4 decimal place accuracy but the graphs aren't even visually accurate to 1 decimal place. The graphs should also reflect identical voltage ranges for equidistant lines but they don't, the first lines above and below nominal are only half or less the voltage range as the equidistant lines in the rest of the graph. As a result the voltage drops beyond a plus or minus 1% range aren't reflected accurately in the shape of the curve.
Also the 11.94V line in the 12V graph should be 11.64V and the 3.14V line should be labeled 3.13V if the graphs are supposed to be consistent above and below nominal.
The label on the psu is not more complicated than on any other psu, its very easy to understand, I cant see what makes this label more complicated than any other label.
No offence Chris, but are you really sure you know how to read the labels?
The label lists combined 3.3V and 5V, but nothing about the 12V. 58A and 12V works out to 696W, which means you can't count on getting anywhere near 58A from the 12V lines. And there are four 12V rails, but no mention of the breakdown of power distribution. Hell, the label doesn't even let you know there are four rails! Yes, that's so much better than, say, the way Xigmatek did their labels: http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...">http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...
It's not a huge complaint, but given the parity between power supplies it seems to me that a lame-ass label deserves a mention. Just like your comment deserved a rebuttal. No offense, but are you sure you know how to read technical reviews?
The label lists combined 3.3V and 5V, but nothing about the 12V. 58A and 12V works out to 696W, which means you can't count on getting anywhere near 58A from the 12V lines.
Since there is bound to be a minimum load requirement on the other rails, it is true that it would be difficult to load the +12V up to 696W without going over 700W, but I fail to see how this makes for an argument that the label is any less comprehensive. When other PSU companies list the +12V capability in watts, I hear people complain that they have to bust out a calculator and divide by 12. Is it really so hard to go from wattage to amperage and vise versa when the voltage is known?
Unless you're using this sentence as a platform for your argument:
Obviously, that load is not possible with the combined power of all three main rails; doing the necessary math, if you put a load of 180W on the 3.3V and 5V rails, that leaves 520W for the 12V rail, or 43A.
I believe if you look at virtually ANY quality power supply on the market you're going to find that if you full load whatever the +3.3V and +5V combined is, that there is significantly less power available to the +12V. I say "quality" because any PSU that gives you a total wattage number that IS the sum of it's +3.3V and +5V and it's +12V is likely lying about it's actual total output capability. This has everything to do with a power supply's capability to convert AC to DC and then the unit's ability to regulate X amount of DC on the secondary side. Never does 3.3V + 5V + 12V = PSU's total capability.
And there are four 12V rails, but no mention of the breakdown of power distribution. Hell, the label doesn't even let you know there are four rails!
I must have missed this because nowhere could I find that this is a PSU with a split +12V rail. In fact, in this review it says: "The DA700 comes with a single 12V rail rated for up to 58A" and on SilverStone's website it says "Class-leading single +12V rail with 58A at 50?" so where are we getting four +12V rails from?
Bottom of page 4: " The more important 12V rail, which is actually four separate rails, has similar good readings and always stays just above the specified 12.00V"
Yes, thats a statement in the review. Silverstone sell the psu as a single rail unit. You must prove Silverstone is hiding the truth, not just make a statement out of no-where.
If someone would only look through all of the date before making comments. Please have a look in the gallery added to the Internals page. One might find a picture with the different 12V rails clearly marked on the PCB... additionally one might find the four different color markings on the yellow 12V cables on various kinds of pics from the article.
You'd think that somebody who just reviewed the single 12V rail Impervio made EliteXStreams with 5 rails printed on the PCB and color coded wires would have this figured out by now. How come you guys don't do the OCP test that your testing method article talks about?
I guess that sentence where I mention the four rails has been just misleading as I didnt mean to say it's a four 12V rail PSU. I will change that for the sake of a good sleep tonight :)
"The rail specification is rather obfuscated, requiring several perusals and the use of a calculator before you actually understand what you're reading."
It's simple, what we are reading is the label, the label tells you it has an capability to put out 58A on one single rail on +12V (no matter the reality one or four rails). It also tells you the psu has the capability to put out 180W or combined on +3.3 and +5V. I can't see what is so obfuscated?
"The DA700 comes with a single 12V rail rated for up to 58A which is almost 700W already. Obviously, that load is not possible with the combined power of all three main rails; doing the necessary math, if you put a load of 180W on the 3.3V and 5V rails, that leaves 520W for the 12V rail, or 43A."
On which psu can you take the maximum combined output on +3.3V and +5V and add it with the maximum capability on +12V and get anywhere near the total specified wattage on the psu? None.
There is no psu where you can draw the maximum output on +3.3V and +5V combined and +12V at the same time.
This unit is not the only psu where the combined output on +12V is so high its more a theoretical maximum output. Other units has even less left for +3.3V and +5V. But that is pure theory.
If now the unit has four rails on +12V, well that is a bit of lame of Silvertone not to tell it. I agree. But still, it has nothing to do with the readability of the label. Besides it is mentioned later in the review.
"The problem is that there are quite a lot of patents on larger fans"
How the hell could a larger fan be patented? What kind of backward country is that?
The patent is a power supply cooled by a 140mm fan. That's why other manufacturers (other than CWT the patent owner) need to make use of 135mm or 120mm fans. In the U.S you get patents for all kinds of stuff...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
Back to Article
Spacecomber - Sunday, April 27, 2008 - link
Does Silverstone offer any lower wattage Decathlons of the same type as this reviewed model, i.e., with the same very quiet characteristics? 700 watts is just way more power than I can imagine needing for a music server/home theatre PC.And, I didn't understand why Silverstone and Impervio were considered to be unlikely partners. Can anyone shed a bit of light on that remark?
Finally (and least), I think this sentence on the first page is missing a word, "However, with this new Decathlon Silverstone is trying a different approach from what we have previously [seen?]."
Thanks.
Christoph Katzer - Sunday, April 27, 2008 - link
Silverstone does have the ELEMENT series with 400 watts which is very nice as well.The remark on Silverstone and Impervio was made because I said once that Impervio was formed by Silverstone. I then had major complaints from Impervio coming in since there were companies wanting to stop working with them if they belonged to Silverstone.
Clue69Less - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
Based on the review title, I'd expected to see some comparison data. Maybe the PCP&C Silencer 750 and the Zalman HP-700 units would be good to compare if having ample power in a quiet package. Sure, this review has quantitative SPL results but it would be nice to see an actual, real-time comparison. You know, like science typically does.Kanchenjunga - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
Your methodology claims a 4 decimal place accuracy but the graphs aren't even visually accurate to 1 decimal place. The graphs should also reflect identical voltage ranges for equidistant lines but they don't, the first lines above and below nominal are only half or less the voltage range as the equidistant lines in the rest of the graph. As a result the voltage drops beyond a plus or minus 1% range aren't reflected accurately in the shape of the curve.Also the 11.94V line in the 12V graph should be 11.64V and the 3.14V line should be labeled 3.13V if the graphs are supposed to be consistent above and below nominal.
Stefan555 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
The label on the psu is not more complicated than on any other psu, its very easy to understand, I cant see what makes this label more complicated than any other label.No offence Chris, but are you really sure you know how to read the labels?
whatthehey - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory in full effect (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/">http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ for the uninformed).The label lists combined 3.3V and 5V, but nothing about the 12V. 58A and 12V works out to 696W, which means you can't count on getting anywhere near 58A from the 12V lines. And there are four 12V rails, but no mention of the breakdown of power distribution. Hell, the label doesn't even let you know there are four rails! Yes, that's so much better than, say, the way Xigmatek did their labels: http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...">http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...
It's not a huge complaint, but given the parity between power supplies it seems to me that a lame-ass label deserves a mention. Just like your comment deserved a rebuttal. No offense, but are you sure you know how to read technical reviews?
jonnyGURU - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
The label lists combined 3.3V and 5V, but nothing about the 12V. 58A and 12V works out to 696W, which means you can't count on getting anywhere near 58A from the 12V lines.
Since there is bound to be a minimum load requirement on the other rails, it is true that it would be difficult to load the +12V up to 696W without going over 700W, but I fail to see how this makes for an argument that the label is any less comprehensive. When other PSU companies list the +12V capability in watts, I hear people complain that they have to bust out a calculator and divide by 12. Is it really so hard to go from wattage to amperage and vise versa when the voltage is known?
Unless you're using this sentence as a platform for your argument:
Obviously, that load is not possible with the combined power of all three main rails; doing the necessary math, if you put a load of 180W on the 3.3V and 5V rails, that leaves 520W for the 12V rail, or 43A.
I believe if you look at virtually ANY quality power supply on the market you're going to find that if you full load whatever the +3.3V and +5V combined is, that there is significantly less power available to the +12V. I say "quality" because any PSU that gives you a total wattage number that IS the sum of it's +3.3V and +5V and it's +12V is likely lying about it's actual total output capability. This has everything to do with a power supply's capability to convert AC to DC and then the unit's ability to regulate X amount of DC on the secondary side. Never does 3.3V + 5V + 12V = PSU's total capability.
And there are four 12V rails, but no mention of the breakdown of power distribution. Hell, the label doesn't even let you know there are four rails!
I must have missed this because nowhere could I find that this is a PSU with a split +12V rail. In fact, in this review it says: "The DA700 comes with a single 12V rail rated for up to 58A" and on SilverStone's website it says "Class-leading single +12V rail with 58A at 50?" so where are we getting four +12V rails from?
strikeback03 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Bottom of page 4: " The more important 12V rail, which is actually four separate rails, has similar good readings and always stays just above the specified 12.00V"Stefan555 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Yes, thats a statement in the review. Silverstone sell the psu as a single rail unit. You must prove Silverstone is hiding the truth, not just make a statement out of no-where.Without proof the statement is worth nothing
Christoph Katzer - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
If someone would only look through all of the date before making comments. Please have a look in the gallery added to the Internals page. One might find a picture with the different 12V rails clearly marked on the PCB... additionally one might find the four different color markings on the yellow 12V cables on various kinds of pics from the article.Stefan555 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Yes Chris, the physical layout of the PCB show there are four rails. It doesnt mean each rail has a limiter. Whitout limiters = SINGLE rail unit.Kanchenjunga - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
You'd think that somebody who just reviewed the single 12V rail Impervio made EliteXStreams with 5 rails printed on the PCB and color coded wires would have this figured out by now. How come you guys don't do the OCP test that your testing method article talks about?Christoph Katzer - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
I guess that sentence where I mention the four rails has been just misleading as I didnt mean to say it's a four 12V rail PSU. I will change that for the sake of a good sleep tonight :)MrOblivious - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
What was the OCP set at for each of the 4 12v rails?Stefan555 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
"The rail specification is rather obfuscated, requiring several perusals and the use of a calculator before you actually understand what you're reading."It's simple, what we are reading is the label, the label tells you it has an capability to put out 58A on one single rail on +12V (no matter the reality one or four rails). It also tells you the psu has the capability to put out 180W or combined on +3.3 and +5V. I can't see what is so obfuscated?
"The DA700 comes with a single 12V rail rated for up to 58A which is almost 700W already. Obviously, that load is not possible with the combined power of all three main rails; doing the necessary math, if you put a load of 180W on the 3.3V and 5V rails, that leaves 520W for the 12V rail, or 43A."
On which psu can you take the maximum combined output on +3.3V and +5V and add it with the maximum capability on +12V and get anywhere near the total specified wattage on the psu? None.
There is no psu where you can draw the maximum output on +3.3V and +5V combined and +12V at the same time.
This unit is not the only psu where the combined output on +12V is so high its more a theoretical maximum output. Other units has even less left for +3.3V and +5V. But that is pure theory.
If now the unit has four rails on +12V, well that is a bit of lame of Silvertone not to tell it. I agree. But still, it has nothing to do with the readability of the label. Besides it is mentioned later in the review.
Calin - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
"The problem is that there are quite a lot of patents on larger fans"How the hell could a larger fan be patented? What kind of backward country is that?
Christoph Katzer - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
The patent is a power supply cooled by a 140mm fan. That's why other manufacturers (other than CWT the patent owner) need to make use of 135mm or 120mm fans. In the U.S you get patents for all kinds of stuff...masher2 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Sounds like an urban myth to me..MrOblivious - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
SuperFlower has been using 140mm fan's for years, indeed IIRC before CWT.strikeback03 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Time for someone to make a 141mm fan