Talk:80 Plus

Criticism

Someone should add critizism to this article, see http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/04/80_plus_irrelevant_to_you_when_buying_psu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.144.170 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article, makes some very plausible points. NCdave (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Link gone. 2A00:1370:812C:91A8:91C8:6C42:6022:921E (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Update 80 Plus to reflect Ecova

Hello: My name is Erin F and I work for Ecova - can someone please update the 80 Plus wiki page to reflect that 80 Plus is now a program of Ecova, not Ecos Consulting. You can find out about the history of the acquisition here: http://www.ecova.com/about-us/our-history.aspx

Thank you. Erinmf47 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 80 Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711161931/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Power-Supplies-With-Fake-80-Plus-Badges/1054 to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Power-Supplies-With-Fake-80-Plus-Badges/1054
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928084927/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Can-We-Trust-the-80-Plus-Certification/856 to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Can-We-Trust-the-80-Plus-Certification/856
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711161931/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Power-Supplies-With-Fake-80-Plus-Badges/1054 to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Power-Supplies-With-Fake-80-Plus-Badges/1054

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Power factor

The article says: "Typical computer power supplies may have power factors as low as 0.5 to 0.6." Does this means '50% to 60% efficiency', or does it means something else? If it means the same, I think it would make the text more clear if the % was added between paranthesis.--MisterSanderson (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it not clear to me too if there is any difference between power efficiency and power factor. Would this excerpt...

"it certifies products that have more than 80% energy efficiency at 20%, 50% and 100% of rated load, and a power factor of 0.9 or greater at 100% load"

...be equivalent to this one?

"it certifies products that have more than 80% energy efficiency at 20%, 50% and 100% of rated load, and a power efficiency of 90% or greater at 100% load" Edits2019 (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Power factor and efficiency are different things. The first mention of power factor in the lead links to our article on subject if you don't know what it means. We mention how power factors directly influence usage of the PSU in the article under the technical overview. Perhaps we could expand more on why power factors matter in a general sense but ultimately there's a limit to how much we should comment in this article on general concepts, just like our comments on efficiency. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Notebook chargers?

Are there any chargers for laptops or notebooks that are 80plus or better?--141.54.48.92 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Add important info about C6/C7/C9 states and Alternative Modern Standby

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=80_Plus&diff=908436818&oldid=908434914&diffmode=source deleted very important info. 80 PLUS nowadays is not enough; there are many other parameters which Intel, Microsoft and Google require and I think we should have this information present. One of the most important parameters is Timing T1 & T3 for ASM. (Alternative Sleep Mode, ASM replaces the traditional Sleep Mode (ACPI S3) with a new sleep mode. An example of ASM is with Microsoft Modern Standby or Lucid Sleep with Google Chrome). Also important thing is C6-C9 states (https://metebalci.com/blog/a-minimum-complete-tutorial-of-cpu-power-management-c-states-and-p-states/, Throttle Stop Utility and https://github.com/opcm/pcm). Also see https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/resellers/psu-selector.html https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/design-guides/resellers-power-supply-design-guide-changes.pdf ZBalling (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And how is this related or even relevant for an efficiency certification? --Denniss (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It is energy saving specification. By efficiency certification you mean only 80 PLUS, right? Well, the problem is that Intel now plays much bigger role in that. It dictates with its guide (which is derived from 80 PLUS), what PSU manufactors should do. Like you know, ultra low currents and such (and all above mentioned). Why are you against this? I will not write a new article to tell everybody about Intel suddenly is more important than "I don't know what company is behind 80 PLUS as of now". Also you mentioned ASPI/ATX spec., which should also be somehow linked to. Ah, yes, I am not affiliated with Intel. ZBalling (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Besides that this page should have links to choose a PSU, Intel's page is good and it will be like /* bureaucrat mode on */ a secondary source. ZBalling (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I needed ErP 0.5W thing in PSU to be the same as in motherboard https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1074075-erpeup-ready-power-supply-is-required/ and only that link from intel gave me that info; corsair does not have this information on their site and even in the docs inside the box. 2A00:1FA0:2CF:26A9:1DCE:D651:310C:EF2E (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Include link to Intel PSU selector

Should the article include https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/resellers/psu-selector.html as Intel requires all the 80 Plus spec., but not only that (see information above), they also add info for tested PSU about ErP when you turn off PC (there are always some parts of cumputer that work even when PC is turned off), they also test Modern Standy (Always On, Always Connected, when PC works like smartphone, it will be used in next notebook bigLittle Intel Cores), also there are some min. requirements for C6-C9 sleep states. That was a problem in the past when PSU were not compatible. We should not only use one source for tests (from 80 Plus itself, it is just wrong as we must not use primary sources). 2A00:1FA0:42B:AFCA:C850:6E34:CA5B:13F4 (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Yes, per above. I needed ErP value, it was not on PSU site (corsair in this case). 2A00:1FA0:42B:AFCA:C850:6E34:CA5B:13F4 (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No as its not related nor relevant to 80+ spec. --Denniss (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No. (Summoned by bot) This RfC offers wording that explain why it must be added, based on the OP's own logic. That's not only a violation of neutral wording required for any RfC, but a violation of WP:SYNTH by using editor's reasoning instead of reliable secondary sources. I understand that for an article like this, secondary sources are rare and thin, but that's a separate issue, not helped by this RfC. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no perennial sources for that in google, at all. But if you wanna argue that Intel is not a secondary source for 80 Plus tests, that is not the case, THEY ARE. Indeed for other values they are not a secondary source. Also if you want to argue that Intel is not reliable, that is even more strange. Also if you will try to consider Intel as a RS, it is not a violation(s) then. And BTW, use of the primary source from 80 Plus is a violation for sure but sometimes you need to ignore all rules if it prevents you from improving ... Wikipedia. 2A00:1FA0:4273:2B70:38FB:7B7E:8432:BDD4 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where Intel owns 80 Plus. They are free to make their own qualifications, and maybe that merits some mention here, but all this is off-topic, because that's not what this RfC proposes. My !vote is about the RfC being biased and unworkable. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=80_Plus&diff=947272953&oldid=947271840 And intel does "own" 80 Plus, because 80 Plus does PSU for Intel. Not like they can do anything against Intel. Also here is the spec https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/guides/efficiency-procedure-guide.pdf, 80 Plus is just a subclass of that spec. 2A00:1FA0:4486:F040:C5A6:86D2:DC14:CAF3 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Stated clearly, that change have been a better proposal, but that's not the wording of this RfC. Again, My !vote is based on the current RfC, not what should have been intended.

(BTW, not that it matters to this RfC, but the relationship between Intel and 80 Plus cannot be based on appearances in an Intel spec, a primary source, per SYNTH.)

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)