SilverStone Strider Gold 750W
Phoronix: SilverStone Strider Gold 750W
Most often when mentioning SilverStone at Phoronix, it is about one of their phenomenally designed cases like the Temjin TJ10, Fortress FT02, or most recently the Fortress FT03. Enclosures and other peripherals aren't our primary focus at Phoronix for being a Linux-focused hardware outfit, but it's always interesting seeing as what SilverStone comes up with in their new designs. Even though their products have been reviewed at Phoronix for the past six years, their new products always manage to push the envelope further. When it's not a SilverStone enclosure, it's usually a power supply, and that's what we're looking at today; up on the review block is a SilverStone Strider Gold 750W.
on the review block?
Please don't call articles like this a review. "Unboxing" or "Product Announcement" or something like that is sufficient.
You can call it a review when you can report on most of these as tested (not as spec'ed):
- Overall Efficiency (at various loads)
- PFC Efficiency (at various loads)
- Ripple & Noise (at various loads)
- Voltage variation under load
- OPP/OCP protection thresholds
- Hold-up time
- Fan quality (verify sleeved versus ball bearing or FDB etc)
Giving an award based on we plugged it in and it works doesn't mean much.
Listing the connectors and their lengths is good, even better put that in a table.
Please stop calling these things reviews till you have the gear and the skill to match the PSU gurus on JonnyGuru, PC Perspective, Hardware Secrets, Silent PC Review or HardOCP.
You have no testing, no breakdown of internal component, just adversed that it's a power supply and that it didn't instantly explode when switched on. Just leave this kind of thing to the guys that have a clue.
I agree. People at Johnyguru(incl Johny himself), or german guy named Martin Kaffei/soulpain do wonderful reviews. This is not review, but unboxing.
Because for review you have to watch how PSU really performs under various loads(how voltages stay within specs, how much does psu consumes) , 3.3, 5 and 12 ripples, test max peak load. And then open the psu box and show us its internals, like cooling, available protections (over/under -load, -current, etc), measure actual hotspots on it, and last not least - what kind of capacitors were used as primary and as secondary. As its capacitor quality and allowed max temperature define how much the psu will last.
For example, thanks to johny and soulpain, I have now 600W coolermaster silent pro, with 105c Nippon Chemicon on primals and 105 taiwanese Teapo on secondary, flat cables and 5 year warranty. All for 70€.
Unless the heading was edited, "REVIEW" is hardly displayed prominantly. The word is just used casually at the end of the introduction. Why is everyone jumping all of his back?
There were no tests done, this is pointless and tell us nothing about this PSU. Even Tom's Hardware has more useful PSU articles.
A single fact is that PSU brands lie, and they lie a lot. You just can't cite the specs on the sticker and believe them. The point in reviewing PSUs is to separate facts from lies; not take pretty pics and repeat their bundled texts.
That article was one of the most stupid "reviews" I ever read. When seeing the "approved" logo at the end, I almost laughed out loud. I hope Michael is aware that such articles are actually damaging the credibility of Phoronix, because it's pretty obvious that he's getting paid to deliver forged "reviews" to its readers. Keep it up and this site will enter the "biggest bullshit spreading 'news' sites on the Internet" list.
Phoronix is visited mostly by somewhat technically adept people, so it's impossible to sell us this BS. If the readers were your average Random J. Clueless, they might have worked.
Last edited by RealNC; 05-22-2011 at 02:37 AM.
I agree with the first three post, and not to say I don't agree with the next ones. Doing this kind of "review" is worse than none, because it gives people the (possibly false) impression that the PSU is a good, reliable unit, when it has not been tested properly, and could be really bad.
What credibility? He's burned almost all of that with sensationalist headlines, half accurate news pieces, the constant page view whoring of "Steam for Linux", drowning the site in excessive ads and the half assed reviewing of things like the OSS drivers because he doesn't want to take the time to run the tests twice as most Windows sites do when they use custom settings, hell, some do 4 test sets I.E. stock settings stock speed, stock settings overclocked, custom settings stock clock, custom settings overclocked.
Originally Posted by RealNC
Not to mention the fact that the graps are always all over the place, they need set thresholds at 30, 60, 85 and 120FPS, as we all know, 30 is the standard minimum threshold for smooth gameplay, 60 is the speed most every LCD caps at, 85 where those with CRTs capped out at, anything higher should really have it's bar cut off since you're pushing more frames then you can possibly display anyways, so just providing the umber is sufficient.
No, I don't agree with that one. It doesn't make sense to cap to 85, or to cap to anything. Because then you're not measuring speed, you're measuring the ability to reach the cap. And this is not what benchmarking is about. Benchmarking is there to tells us who is the fastest, not who can reach the cap. As an example, if a card reaches the 85 cap, but without it would go to 87, and another would go to 500, then that says a lot about which is the superior hardware/driver. It tells you which one is future proof. Today's 500FPS monster will be tomorrow's 85FPS cap reacher. Today's 85'er will be tomorrow's useless paper weight.
Originally Posted by Kivada
Last edited by RealNC; 05-23-2011 at 05:24 PM.
Tags for this Thread