AX760i efficiency in CorsairLink?

[tenkay]

Hey,

 

I bought the Corsair AX760i PS a few days ago as a replacement. My first one sadly failed the self test, so it was exchanged the same day at the store. I'm now running on the second one, but I have some concerns about the efficiency number that CorsairLink reports.

 

It normally hovers in the 85-89 range, sometimes dips into the 70%-79% range, rarely goes into the 90's and with the exception of a very, very rare occasion doesn't see 95%+ (rare being every 5 or more minutes).

 

My understanding is the PS should be generally sitting in the 90%+ range. Is this being misreported by CorsairLink, or is the PS not hitting what I believe should be it's rated efficiency?

 

This is a screenshot of what I mean from CorsairLink, http://i.imgur.com/fjkfZpx.png

 

Thanks.

[RAM GUY]

You would have to be above 40-50% load to get 90% efficiency, from the screen shot the PSU is fine.

[Orgazme]

You would have to be above 40-50% load to get 90% efficiency, from the screen shot the PSU is fine.

 

Hi.

 

From what I understand by reading in the PSU's manual (and on the box) it says that the efficiency should be between 90-92% (115Vac) and 91-93% (230Vac) between 20-100% load. That's an efficiency (using 115Vac/230Vac) of 90/91% @ 152W, 92/93% @ 380W and 91/92% @ 760W.

Am I misunderstanding something?

 

Here below are tests of the AX760i.

 

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Corsair-AX760i-Power-Supply-Review/1668/7

@19.9% load (151W) they got an efficiency of 91.2%.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Corsair/AX760i/5.html

@20% load (151.76W) they got an efficiency of 90.77% (CorsairLINK2 99%).

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Corsair/AX760i/6.html

"The loads that we dialed were 40, 60, 80, and 100 W"

79.72W 86.43%.

99.72W 88.40%.

 

 

According to CorsairLINK2 my system idle between 84-96W (230Vac) and I can rarely see the efficiency hit or pass 80%. It does happen but only for a sec or so. At 170-175W (1 minute test) I could read an efficiency of 73-75%.

 

I've read there are others having "issues" with the efficiency and some who got great efficiency. One example, I quote "Mine usually shows 120/122W which is "99% eff"".

 

I understand that CorsairLINK2 might not be 100% accurate. But if it can't be at least somewhat accurate, why should I use it and why do you provide it?

 

The only way for me to see the PSU efficiency is by using CorsairLINK2 and I can't say I'm pleased with the numbers.

 

What am I doing wrong? What can/should I do?

 

I would greatly appreciate any help and input.

 

Best regards

Jimmie

[RAM GUY]

I am not sure what you are seeing but in your screen shot it went above 90% a few times in that time line and you are at a low load less; than 130 watts.

Can you post another screen shot showing at least 60% load? And please provide screen shots of these two conditions:

1. System idle 84-96W 230Vac (rarely hit or pass 80%)

2. 170-175W 1 minute test (73-75%)

 

 

And a note from the PM about this:

The AXi series product is not designed to support measurement below 100W i.e. defined as out of range.

[jonnyguru]

The best tool to use is the logging feature of Link. I would turn on logging, run a few benchmarks or games and then attach the log to your post.

 

10% of 760 is 76W. Let's use 80 Plus's numbers as an example. They measured the efficiency at 10% load at 84.99%. They created a DC load of 76.29W while pulling 89.76W from the wall:

 

http://www.plugloadsolutions.com/psu_reports/CORSAIR_75-001302_760W_ECOS%203326_Report.pdf

 

Of course, that's using professional equipment. Link is good, but it's not perfect. Supposedly there is a +/- 5% tolerance on the AC reading, which is actually in-line with an off the shelf clamping ammeter. That means if you were reproducing that same load, you could be seeing an AC measurement as low as 85.27W (which would improve your efficiency number) or as high as 94.24% (which would hurt your efficiency number).

 

The DC output measurement is a little more accurate at +/- 2%. That means the measured load could be as low as 74.77W or as high as 77.81W.

 

Then you do the math. With those tolerances in consideration, your efficiency reading could be anywhere between 79.33% and 91.25%.

 

I know that's a pretty wide range and hardly tells you what your actual usage and efficiency is, but at higher loads, the reading gets more and more accurate, which is why I suggest running the logging software and actually doing something on your PC that pulls more than just 152W (20%) from the wall and post those results.

 

A good example of how Link's readings can vary from that of a measured load is in this review here: http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story4&reid=300

 

Between the tolerance of the ammeter and the tolerance of the software, they saw innaccuracies as great as 9.48% (24-pin's 12V measurement at 180W load). Efficiency numbers were off as much as 3.09% in their testing.

[Orgazme]

Hi.

 

Here are some CorsairLINK2 logs. Not sure I can pull out more watts out of my system.

 

 

Best regards

Jimmie

logs.zip

[jonnyguru]

When logging, please just enable AX760i MAIN and AX760i POWER.

 

Thanks!

[Orgazme]

When logging, please just enable AX760i MAIN and AX760i POWER.

 

Thanks!

 

Whenever there is a value with a comma (,), that value is split into two columns. Therefore the logs look like a mess. I don't know how to configure my OpenOffice not to do that.

 

I've edited the logs. Hopefully I can get some input on them this time.

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

edited LOGS.zip

[jonnyguru]

I still can't really read it. I guess that's a good bug to report to the Link team is that it doesn't format properly in Open Office! :D

 

3DMark doesn't really stress a computer too much. I've actually had better results with running OCCT or FurMark.

 

You don't need to run all these different tests. I would just download FurMark, run the Prime95 on all your CPU cores, then run FurMark in burn-in mode on top of that and do this while the logging is running with only the MAIN and POWER boxes checked. Then, post the CSV file WITHOUT opening it in Open Office first (I suppose you could if you were curious, but don't save when you close it, which it might ask you to do) and certainly don't edit it.

 

In XLS, I should see my comma separation in separate cells. Then I can move the numbers around, hack off extra decimal places, etc. and actually see what you have there.

 

If you have the raw file from Link without ever being re-saved by Open Office, try opening it in Google Docs. I can't say I've tried it yet, but it's worth a shot to see if the formatting is any better.

[Orgazme]

I still can't really read it. I guess that's a good bug to report to the Link team is that it doesn't format properly in Open Office! :D

 

3DMark doesn't really stress a computer too much. I've actually had better results with running OCCT or FurMark.

 

You don't need to run all these different tests. I would just download FurMark, run the Prime95 on all your CPU cores, then run FurMark in burn-in mode on top of that and do this while the logging is running with only the MAIN and POWER boxes checked. Then, post the CSV file WITHOUT opening it in Open Office first (I suppose you could if you were curious, but don't save when you close it, which it might ask you to do) and certainly don't edit it.

 

In XLS, I should see my comma separation in separate cells. Then I can move the numbers around, hack off extra decimal places, etc. and actually see what you have there.

 

If you have the raw file from Link without ever being re-saved by Open Office, try opening it in Google Docs. I can't say I've tried it yet, but it's worth a shot to see if the formatting is any better.

 

Not sure if it's the user's fault or OpenOffice. Either way I can't seem to solve the issue with the "commas".

 

Still I can't understand why you can't read the logs. They aren't pretty (due to the values with commas being separated into two columns so the things that are being logged are displaced(?)) but I can read them, why can't you? I even cleaned them up!

 

Please do try to check all the logs (I use OpenOffice and even thought it's not pretty I can read them) so you get a better understanding of my unit.

 

I've added my last log, furmark+prime95 (not opened!) for whoever is interested.

 

I would greatly appreciate if I could get more people to give me feedback on my logs.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

logs.zip

[jonnyguru]

Still I can't understand why you can't read the logs. They aren't pretty (due to the values with commas being separated into two columns so the things that are being logged are displaced(?)) but I can read them, why can't you? I even cleaned them up!

 

Please do try to check all the logs (I use OpenOffice and even thought it's not pretty I can read them) so you get a better understanding of my unit.

 

Probably because I'm not using OpenOffice? There were no commas in the files I opened above (using Office 2010, btw).

 

I've added my last log, furmark+prime95 (not opened!) for whoever is interested.

 

And because you didn't open it with OpenOffice first, which apparently does something to the formatting, I can read the file!!!! :D So give me a sec to look at it now that I have something I can read.

[jonnyguru]

What version of Link are you using? I can read the results now, but they couldn't possibly be correct. You're correct, efficiency doesn't go over 80%, but have a look at your "Power In" numbers!

 

4385964912281.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

6992481203008.00

6992481203008.00

6992481203008.00

 

You know that's not right! You're using the entire city's grid's capability to power your PC?!?

 

And your input voltage jumps from 86V when you start off up to 214V.

 

Uninstall Link COMPLETELY. I'd even go as far as using a program like Advanced Uninstaller Pro and getting rid of any registry entries and orphaned folders.

 

Make sure you have the newest version of Link: http://www.corsair.com/us/media/cms/drivers/CorsairLINK2_Installer_v2.3.4816.exe

 

If you STILL have wacky readings, we might have to consider the worst case scenario and there might be a problem with one of the components within the PSU that's responsible for measuring and reporting the data.

 

To give you an idea how Link is *supposed to work*, even at lower loads, here's a blog I did on the Corsair website: http://www.corsair.com/us/blog/using-corsair-link-to-monitor-a-corsair-ax860i-digital-atxpsus-power-output-temperature-and-fan-speed/

[Orgazme]

Probably because I'm not using OpenOffice? There were no commas in the files I opened above (using Office 2010, btw).

 

I have a lot of logs but if no one can actually read them, what's the point? Do you have any suggestions on how to solve our problem? It would be a lot easier if we saw the same thing.

 

but have a look at your "Power In" numbers!

4385964912281.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

7017543859649.00

6992481203008.00

6992481203008.00

6992481203008.00

 

From what I understand, this is how it should read. Why LINK logs that many decimals is beyond me...

 

Efficiency (%)

75,4385964912281 (the commas displace the "4385964912281" to the Power In (W) column)

Power In (W)

114

Power Out (W)

86

Main (V)

224

Main (A)

0,40625

 

(Random pick of an 80% efficiency at 222W OUT)

 

Efficiency (%)

80,4347826086957

Power In (W)

276

Power Out (W)

222

Main (V)

224,5

Main (A)

1,78125

 

I think I managed to pull ~222W OUT (29% of 760) at most from my system and I don't think I could see anything passed 80% efficiency.

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

[jonnyguru]

From what I understand, this is how it should read. Why LINK logs that many decimals is beyond me...

 

No. Look at it again. That's only TWO decimal places.

 

Yes, Link normally logs more than two AFTER the decimal places, but you're logging 13 digits THEN the decimal. That's not right.

 

So, back to what I suggested, are you going to uninstall and reinstall the newest version of Link? Because this back and forth about what version of Office to use isn't accomplishing much. If you look at the link I provided, I was up around 90% even at low loads. So there IS something wrong.

[Orgazme]

 

So, back to what I suggested, are you going to uninstall and reinstall the newest version of Link?

 

I currently have CorsairLINK2 v2.3.4816 installed. The uploaded logs are logged using that version of the program. Is there any later version?

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

[Orgazme]

Uninstalled and reinstalled the CorsairLINK2_Installer_v2.3.4816.

 

Still can't seem to pass the 80% mark.

 

I've not opened the uploaded log (I opened a copy of it).

 

I've created a post regarding my logs over at POWER SUPPLY but thus far no one has answered. Quite disappointed I must say.

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

[jonnyguru]

That's the latest. Did you do a complete uninstall of it (suggested using an uninstaller with a registry scrubber like Advanced Uninstaller Pro) and reinstalling it?

 

That's worked for me on a lot of programs that didn't work properly first go around.

[jonnyguru]

Uninstalled and reinstalled the CorsairLINK2_Installer_v2.3.4816.

 

Still can't seem to pass the 80% mark.

 

I've not opened the uploaded log (I opened a copy of it).

 

I've created a post regarding my logs over at POWER SUPPLY but thus far no one has answered. Quite disappointed I must say.

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

 

Probably because you cross posted (posted two threads with the same issue) and they see that I'm here trying to help you.

 

It may be that you have a faulty AX760i. Even at those low loads, you should see much better than 80% efficiency.

[Orgazme]

That's the latest. Did you do a complete uninstall of it (suggested using an uninstaller with a registry scrubber like Advanced Uninstaller Pro) and reinstalling it?

 

I uninstalled the program using add/remove programs and I use CCleaner and Advanced Systemcare 6 to "clean" my system.

 

Probably because you cross posted (posted two threads with the same issue) and they see that I'm here trying to help you.

 

It may be that you have a faulty AX760i. Even at those low loads, you should see much better than 80% efficiency.

 

I really appreciate the time and effort that others spend on me here at the forums. I really do! I didn't mean to disrespect you (or be an a$$) when I posted in the other part of the forum. I just wanted input from other people regarding how to "read" my logs since we don't agree on that part.

 

I don't know whether or not the unit is faulty or not. I think the efficiency numbers are bad, even with some kind of "margin of error" taken into account. But I would feel a lot better if someone else other than you and me could agree with this as well.

 

If I have offended you (by posting in the other part of the forum) I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention.

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

[RAM GUY]

Jimmie

First thing please dont double post that will not help, and personally I dont think there is anything wrong with the PSU you have based on what you have posted but if you want to get an RMA and try and replace the PSU then by all means go ahead, please use the link on the left and request an RMA and we can try and replace it.

[jonnyguru]

I uninstalled the program using add/remove programs and I use CCleaner and Advanced Systemcare 6 to "clean" my system.

 

I really appreciate the time and effort that others spend on me here at the forums. I really do! I didn't mean to disrespect you (or be an a$$) when I posted in the other part of the forum. I just wanted input from other people regarding how to "read" my logs since we don't agree on that part.

 

I don't know whether or not the unit is faulty or not. I think the efficiency numbers are bad, even with some kind of "margin of error" taken into account. But I would feel a lot better if someone else other than you and me could agree with this as well.

 

If I have offended you (by posting in the other part of the forum) I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention.

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

 

No offense taken. I simply *ignored* the other thread because I was helping with this one.

 

:)

[RAM GUY]

Orgazme,

Johnny Guru and I and one of our Engineers have been talking about this case and I think it would be a good idea to go ahead and do an RMA but I would like for you to let me know the case number and dont send it till you hear from me as we would like to bring this unit into our lab here so we can test it here and try and duplicate the issue you have been reporting.

I dont think there is an issue with the PSU per say but there does seem to be some anomaly with the health reporting and its not clear if its software or maybe something wrong with the health monitoring hardware in the PSU.

Please use the link on the left and request an RMA and let me know the case or ticket number.

[Orgazme]

I'm sorry for the double post.

 

...personally I dont think there is anything wrong with the PSU you have based on what you have posted...

 

Do you see platinum efficiency numbers by looking at my logs?

 

I can't see a 91% efficiency at 20% load in any of my logs (not even if I take some "margin of error" into account). That's what it says in the PSU manual and what's advertised on its box. Please correct me if I've misunderstood that part.

 

I don't know if there's anything wrong with the PSU and the last thing I want to do is waste other people's time.

 

we would like to bring this unit into our lab here so we can test it here and try and duplicate the issue you have been reporting

 

I got no extra PSU that I can use during this time. It it possible to say how long this will take?

 

....let me know the case or ticket number.

 

My ticket number is 6008240.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Best Regards

Jimmie

[RAM GUY]

I think you are missing my point, there is an obvious issue with the reporting but the PSU it self appears to be working properly.

So that was why I suggested we replace the PSU, but I still contend the PSU functionality seems to be fine.

 

I would suggest calling our customer service by phone and ask them for an advanced RMA since you did not do that in your initial request.

The number is listed under contact on the main site.

[Orgazme]

I would suggest calling our customer service by phone and ask them for an advanced RMA since you did not do that in your initial request. The number is listed under contact on the main site.

 

I didn't know I was supposed to ask for an advanced RMA. I've now updated the initial request with that information and waiting to hear back from Corsair.

 

I won't call the costumer service. I prefer having everything in text. That way it's easier to show who said what and when.

 

Best Regards

Jimmie