Hardware Insights Forum

http://www.hardwareinsights.com/seas ... omponents/

Discuss the article here

Yeah, it's a bit of a letdown.

I really don't know why they left that Y capacitor out. They aren't that expensive. Also, the AC wires appear to be damaged somewhat where they are connected to the main PCB (not that it's likely to cause the unit to fail in normal use).

That is usually my problem. I am too lazy to desolder the cables when I mess around with the board so after multiple bending and rotating in each direction, sometimes some wires in the cluster may get broken…usually it's fine if two or free get bad, if it's too much than I resolder that connection completely.

But as I stated, it is not really a bad unit. Just somewhat worse than what we are used too. Two years ago with G line, it was still OK as there was not really that much of competition. Now there is and you can pick up better units. On the other hand the Platinum units from Seasonic are way better. And that's just it. The golden ones are cheaper so there is some performance drawback. Platinum are top but much more expensive. But in both cases you can get good build quality with quality capacitors.

The anomaly is the G-360/SSP-350GT. Those are different platform than the rest of the G (and derivative) line, much better.

Was this one proofread before publishing? I can spot a few issues after a quick look.

Definitely the SBR10U45 is underrated part for over power protection set so high (over 50 % in each case!)

That really doesn't read right. Something like "The OPP is set much higher than the SBR10U45 rectifier can handle" would be more readable

for the lack of saver technology

That should be "for the lack of protections". We don't call it "saver technology"

c_hegge wrote:

Definitely the SBR10U45 is underrated part for over power protection set so high (over 50 % in each case!)

That really doesn't read right. Something like "The OPP is set much higher than the SBR10U45 rectifier can handle" would be more readable

I'll take another look at it.

That should be "for the lack of protections". We don't call it "saver technology"

Behemot is referring to energy-saving enhancements (such as thermistor bypass and X-capacitor discharge IC), not to the protections.

I think there is no settled general name for these discharge ICs and thermistor bypasses so I came up with saver technology