Older Sparkle power supply - help?

I've an older Sparkle powersupply, a FSP300-60GT (300W), and I can't
find it on the AMD compatibility charts or mentioned on the Sparkle
website.

Is it suitable for an AMD Athlon XP2500+ or an Intel 2800C setup?
I've got a fair amount of components in the machine, 3 HDDs, 1 CDRW, 1
DVDR and 4 PCI cards.

On 13 Apr 2004 02:28:18 -0700, (Mike van Erp)
wrote:

I've an older Sparkle powersupply, a FSP300-60GT (300W), and I can't
find it on the AMD compatibility charts or mentioned on the Sparkle
website.

Is it suitable for an AMD Athlon XP2500+ or an Intel 2800C setup?
I've got a fair amount of components in the machine, 3 HDDs, 1 CDRW, 1
DVDR and 4 PCI cards.

In the good ole days, AMD had their list of specific models and the CPUs
they qualified. Back in '02 they stopped listing individual units and
started only linking manufacturers, IIRC. Anyway, shortly before they
pulled it I made an archive of it becuase I'm just silly like that. It's
HTML but compresses wonderfully so that's what happened...

http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/AMD_Re...U_05-22-02.zip

Unfortunately, your power supply isn't on that list. Similar FSP units
were rated up to (Palomino) XP2100, but that was the highest the list
went, not necessarily the highest CPU possible to support in the future.
That unit has 200W combined 3V/5V rating. It's a low capacity but not
REALLY low, not unusable.

Due to it's ratings and considering the 3 HDDs, it wouldn't be as well
suited for use with a ~ 2.8GHz Intel chip or an Athlon (motherboard) that
has the 12V 4-pin connector, it would be better powering an Athlon board
that still uses 5V for CPU power, for example an Asus A7N8X. The catch is
that it's combined rating couple make it inadequate to also use a
high-powered video card. You'd likely be able to use an XP2500, a
mid-range video card and the parts you mentioned.

However, it might not be worthwhile to base a whole system around a power
supply that, now used, is only worth $20 if that.

In article , "Piotr Makley"
says...
kony wrote:

In the good ole days, AMD had their list of specific models
and the CPUs they qualified. Back in '02 they stopped listing
individual units and started only linking manufacturers, IIRC.
Anyway, shortly before they pulled it I made an archive of
it becuase I'm just silly like that. It's HTML but compresses
wonderfully so that's what happened...

http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/AMD_Re...U_05-22-02.zip

That's a good document, Kony. What does this bit of it actually
mean:

QUOTE Because of the tight control OEMs can maintain over the
configuration and power consumption of their products, AMD OEM
customers can use power supplies that are not usually recommended
by AMD for use with a particular processor. Any questions about
power supplies used in OEM systems should be directed to the system
manufacturer. UNQUOTE

Does it mean "our OEMs are so great that you can definitely use the
power supplies with the processors stated even if we, AMD, haven't
actually tested the". ???

Or does it mean "OEM use all sorts of models of power supplies
which we wouldn't recommend but which we reckon you might just
about get away with".

Or even worse: "if you believe the power supply manufacturer's
specifications then this is what, theoretically, you can use - but
don't blame us if it goes wrong".

I suspect it means "The system as supplied will work fine, but if you
want to add anything you're probably stuffed".

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:18:02 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:

That's a good document, Kony. What does this bit of it actually
mean:

QUOTE Because of the tight control OEMs can maintain over the
configuration and power consumption of their products, AMD OEM
customers can use power supplies that are not usually recommended
by AMD for use with a particular processor. Any questions about
power supplies used in OEM systems should be directed to the system
manufacturer. UNQUOTE

Does it mean "our OEMs are so great that you can definitely use the
power supplies with the processors stated even if we, AMD, haven't
actually tested the". ???

Or does it mean "OEM use all sorts of models of power supplies
which we wouldn't recommend but which we reckon you might just
about get away with".

Or even worse: "if you believe the power supply manufacturer's
specifications then this is what, theoretically, you can use - but
don't blame us if it goes wrong".

I'd take it to mean either:

1) OEMs used brands other than the brands on the recommended list, as
major manufacturers that specialize in OEM sales aren't too concerned
about end-user sales and didn't submit any units for testing or we (AMD)
didn't publish the findings because an OEM-proprietary unit may be quiet
alike or quite dissimilar to a more standardized version of that
manufacturer's unit... For example, how often do you see ads or review for
Delta power supplies? They're the largest manufacturer in the world and
generally make good PSU.

2) OEMs, selling complete systems, can calculate the wattage and
determine what's appropriate without making assumptions based on some idea
of an "average" configuration or most popular contemporary hardware. Also
some OEM units are more conservatively rated as per wattage compared to
some name-brands or moving down towards the bottom of the barrel,
especially generics.

3) It's just a nonsensical generic statement since, if they're lucky
enough to get OEM contracts, they don't want customers second-guessing the
OEM on whether the system is adequate, and they don't warranty the CPU to
the end-user so it's less of a concern if the whole box fries out.


Can I ask you a question about some of the data in the document?

I have a Sparkle Power FSP250-60GTV (175 Watts)

Previously you mentioned "FSP300-60GT", or you have both?


which the document
says is ok up to 1700+ but according to AMD
http://tinyurl.com/25o2g, there are three 1700+ processors:

AXDA1700DUT3C (model 8) max 49.4 Watts
AXDA1700DLT3C (model 6) max 49.4 Watts
AXDA1700DMT3C (model 6) max 64.0 Watts

This site http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm says there are four
1700+ processors. Three are T'breds (max 49.4 Watts) and one
Palomino (max 64 Watts).

Which power capability do you think your document is referring to
for my PSU?


It's referring to the oldest, Palomino core, 64W. None of the CPUs in
that document are newer than Palomino, so anywhere it has "XP", Palomino
it is. Palomino was the most power-hungry at any speed rating and only
went up to XP2100, though of course there was overlap in speeds as you
observed, from XP1700 upward.

Actually with 175W combined 3v + 5v it'd power faster modern CPUs too, but
the low combined rating would limit the video card power... or vice-versa
if you like, if you used a higher-powered video card you'd want to pair
that with a slower CPU. This assumes, as AMD did back then, that the CPU
is using 5V rail for power, while "some" newer motherboards, particularly
a lot but not all of the nForce2 boards, do use 12V rail for CPU power, as
evidenced by the inclusion of that ATX12V 4-pin 12V connector on the
motherboard. Your power supply could even handle such a 12V-based
motherboard, allowing more reserve for a higher-end video card, but that
limits the 12V reserve available for powering the multiple hard drives you
mentioned.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:18:02 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:

http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/AMD_Re...U_05-22-02.zip


Also keep in mind that some of the power supplies on that list aren't
particularly good and I'd never recommend for any system, let alone the
CPUs they included as recommended, for example the "Deer" brand. It's
possible they didn't so extensively test some units or that the
manufacturer submitted a design that was different than what eventually
was sold, or at least the design "might've" sold in a small quantity with
a certain design to qualify but was then replaced after gaining the AMD
recommended stamp of approval? Can't be sure of the particulars but
certainly some of the makes/models in the list are better than others of
same wattage and combined 3V + 5V rating.

You'll need a larger power supply unit for all that so that you don't strain
the system.

--
DaveW



"Mike van Erp" wrote in message
om...
I've an older Sparkle powersupply, a FSP300-60GT (300W), and I can't
find it on the AMD compatibility charts or mentioned on the Sparkle
website.

Is it suitable for an AMD Athlon XP2500+ or an Intel 2800C setup?
I've got a fair amount of components in the machine, 3 HDDs, 1 CDRW, 1
DVDR and 4 PCI cards.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:01:27 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:


Kony, thanks for a very useful answer. It is much appreciated.
can I ask you and anyone else here a few more questions to do with
choosing a suitable processor to replace my Duron 700.

It seems from your document that my PSU can possibly power
something like a Palomino drawing up to 64 Watts.

You may be taking it a bit too literally. Remember that it's just a rough
estimate, that it considers 3V + 5V rating and other items than just the
CPU consume 3V or 5V power.

I'm running a normally clocked Duron Spitfire 700 (31 Watts max)
and I have been toying with the idea of installing a Duron
Applebred 1800 (57 Watts max).

It would be a substantial performance improvement, but not necessarily the
best choice, depending on your motherboard, which you didn't mention.


But from your document I see that my PSU could possibly support up
to a Palomino 1700+ (64 Watts max). In that case I guess I should
I be considering one of the T'bred cpus as they heat up less than
Palominos.

Or better still, a Barton XP2500, IF the board supports it. Keep in mind
that the power consumption difference between one speed grade and the next
(few) is slight, the particular video card you use could easily make more
of a difference than which cpu. At worst you could simply buy the best
the motherboard can handle, if you get an extra 6 months out of the system
because it was a little faster, that 6 months might cost the price of a
replacement power supply, perhaps $40... your yearly TCO (total cost of
ownership) of system(s) could be lower by upgrading as much as possible,
dpending on what the board will accept. If it's an old board using
PC100-133 memory I wouldn't upgrade it at all though, newer boards have so
many desireable features and greater performance, not to mention that the
motherboard itself was designed for lower amperage CPUs, it might not be
that the system power supply is inadequate but the motherboard power
supply, or even that it "used" to be adequate but over time has degraded
(capacitors) and is less capable of powering a modern CPU whether it be
the Duron or Palomino or (any other).

As our discussion in this thread has mentioned, the T'bred 1700
needs a max of 49 Watts. That smaller step up from my current 31
Watts seems more sensible. However the 1700 is not that easily
available locally so should I go for a T'bred 1900 or 2100?

That should work, though you may need the retail version w/heatsink or to
purchase a heatsink too, the 'sink on the old duron likely isn't suitable
for these processors.

On the other hand one recent poster
said this:

"Don't forget that this [Duron 1800] processor runs at a full 1800
mhz, which is the equivalent of an Athlon XP 2400 and almost as
fast. It's a great choice budget processor."

So maybe I should stick with the Duron 1800? You can see I am
getting confused. I don't want to upgrade my PSU as I want to keep
this present system as a working system and build a second one
sometime soon.

The Duron is a good value but only you can decide the budget,
price/performance ratio that suits you, and further what you'll need out
of the system in it's aux. role after you build the 2nd system. If your
motherboard will run one and since you're building another system anyway,
that may well be the best value upgrade in your situation.


Are my power calcuations sound? Or am I overlooking some other
important factor when it comes to power requirement?

With a power supply you shouldn't really be trying to add up component
wattages to the end of consuming all of a power supply's capacity. The
more you push the limits of the unit's capacity the shorter it's lifespan
will typically be... it's not just a matter of 10W difference between one
CPU or the other until you reach an absolute upper limit where the system
won't POST at all or starts crashing under the most stressful tasks. Keep
in mind that if your motherboard supports multiplier chances, and you buy
a T'Bred (I don't know about the Durons) you can choose the CPU multiplier
yourself, so you have control over how much power the CPU uses... an
XP2000 running at a reduced, manually set 11X multiplier would result in
same power consumption as a stock speed XP1700 T'Bred (assuming same
voltage rating, on occasion that varies too).


As an aside, in a recent thread http://tinyurl.com/2jjdk you said
some mobos with my KT266A chipset support T'bred and some do not
but I figure my dealer will know what cpus he's already made work
with the mobo I got from him.

That sounds reasonable, providing that if you follow that advice and it
turns out the CPU isn't supported, the dealer won't charge restocking fees
if it doesn't work (due to the motherboard). Online searchs of your
specific make/model and revision of board may find other users who've
already upgraded, may give you more ideas if the dealer hasn't tried any
particular CPU family.

Nice one Dave, thanks for the detail. I figure you're right and I may
as well get a decent new PSU. Went for a Zalman ZM400B-APS 400W PSU
since the earlier model had a good review on Tom's, and I wouldn't
mind a reasonably quiet PC too.