Recommended Posts

Hey all. I just built my new computer and have just played Dirt Showdown and Spec Ops: The Line.

Dirt ran ok for 5 mins and then I decide to test another game. When playing Spec Ops The line. Everything on the highest possible settings, everything was going well...until about a couple minutes....click....the system rebooted and the bios came up telling me that it detected power surged and rebooted the system as a result to protect it.

I am reusing my old computer's PSU, ThermalTake 600w PSU. Everything except the 2 Molex cables coming from the PSU are being used by my new system.

I went into the bios to check and every seems fine. Here's a screenie:

And rebooted into Windows where everything is fine. Is the PSU not good or too weak for the new system?

post-30282-0-48032300-1369316930.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1154092-power-surges-detected/
Share on other sites

Here's the full specs:

CPU: i7 3770K with Corsair Hydro H00i on it.

MOBO: ASUS P8Z77V

GPU: asus gtx 680 directcu ii 4gb

RAM: 16 GB

SSD: Samsung 256GB

2 HDDs: Seagte 2TB and 500GB

Pioneer Blu-ray drive

Running Win7

Powered by a ThermalTake 600w PSU taken from old PC.

Yep, you want at least a 650 - 750w and if you can afford it get something from Corsair or even Seasonic.

Whomever told you that 600w is enouhg and more is overkill has obviously never owned either a gaming system or a PC with a lot of kit in, I for example have a 750w in mine with the following setup:

Core i5 3570k

16GB DDR3 RAM

GeForce 560Ti

3 Optical Drives (Including 1 BluRay Writer)

1 SSD

5 HDD's

PCI-E Sound Card

Multiple fans in case etc etc

I would go corsair 850

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003PJ6QWE

Yeah, 800W is overkill. I'd get a Corsair TX650. I have one, been running with it for at least 2 years now.

The calc says his computer as it sits is right around the 600 mark, 650 won't give much more wiggle room than what he has now. If he overclocks he is done, he adds another gpu he is done. 800 is the minimum I would go with, it is better to have more than just enough. The 600 was probably overkill for his old PC...this isn't his old pc.

The calc says his computer as it sits is right around the 600 mark, 650 won't give much more wiggle room than what he has now. If he overclocks he is done, he adds another gpu he is done. 800 is the minimum I would go with, it is better to have more than just enough. The 600 was probably overkill for his old PC...this isn't his old pc.

Yet, 800/850W is still overkill for him. 650W is probably his low end. But he should still be able to usee it for days to come. Those calculators are rubbish.

Yet, 800/850W is still overkill for him. 650W is probably his low end. But he should still be able to usee it for days to come. Those calculators are rubbish.

Tell that to his computer that is shutting down when the calc say 583W is needed, rubbish maybe as it can't account for everything...it is only a guage to recommend what you should get...IMO go over board a bit, jump a few hundered watts to be on the safe side. Stay too close and you will get burned again.

Power supplies rated for 600W won't necessarily produce the full wattage consistently and your system's i7 processor, with it's turbo going, will surely be straining your borderline acceptable wattage. Upgrade to a 700W+ for your current configuration. Even higher if you ever want to upgrade, as sc302 said.

In fact, I would like to add to the specifics of "overkill" and "fine" relating to power you will need. A power supply that is always pumping out it's full rating will die quickly. That much stress is not how they are meant to be used. You need head room of about 20%. Any more than that, and yes, it's less energy efficient but that's it. At least you won't have any issues and you will be able to upgrade in the future.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!