This looks to be an excellent product, and not to expensive either, a great shame that it has been discontinued.

I hope that there is another Super Flower (probably re-branded) PSU to replace this, there should be a good demand for PSU's in this power range that are quiet and efficient and I hope this expands to give us a greater degree of choice and competition is always a benefit to us the consumers.


Andy

If one could get a hold of this PSU, It should be a excellent candidate for a fan swap, Scythe Gentle Typhoon 800 should provide plenty of airflow and lower the noise level considerably.

It would, but it's pretty hard to find. In Australia, the 600/700/800w Golden Greens can be found in small amounts of stock, but I'm yet to see the 450 or lower wattage units anywhere. However, given that the Golden Kings/Silents are tweaked versions of the Golden Greens, I hope Super Flower will eventually release ~350w GKs.

I picked up the 500w Golden Silent not too long ago, and it's a great psu. Not only is it electrically sound, it is also highly efficient at all loads, silent and contains enough pcie cabling for crossfire/sli (a rarity for 500w, even some 650w these days sadly.)

Having a look at the 80+ certification pages Super Flower just has the XE badged models which are Gold rated. In Platinum they have the PE and FG series which currently only go as low as 450W. I would expect such a model to be at least as good but maybe they will introduce a lower marked model? If they were already able to fit 350W, 400W and 430W in to Gold then maybe a 400W in their Platinum series?

So currently in the Gold rated <400W PSUs there are:
Seasonic G-360
Super Flower Golden Green 350W - discontinued/non-existent
Huntkey Jumper 330W - rare, noisy fan has been reported
Seasonic SS-300/350M1U - 1U PSU, 40mm fan won't be that quiet
FSP - Gold rated PSUs down to 250W but seem OEM only, if demand was shown would a retailer take it up?

In this category of supplies there also are, in addition to the ones reviewed here at SPCR:

• be quiet! Efficient F1 350W. certified 80 Plus Gold.
• LC-Power Green Power LC7300 80+ Silver Shield. 300W.

Both of these supplies are significantly cheaper than the Seasonic G360, especially the LC-Power. I would be very interested in reading SPCR's comparison of these two supplies, though I understand they may be difficult to obtain in the US.

German etailers list them as following:

Super Flower Golden Green 400W 55€ + shipping (360W modell not listed)
Seasonic G-360 60€ + shipping


My choice would be G-360, because other Seasonic modells i owned in the past were flawless.

I believe that there is a huge "flaw" in how the 80+ PSU's are rated.

It pretty obvious to anyone who has read a few SPCR PSU reviews that the idea of measuring the "efficiency" of any PSU at 100% of its rated maximum output is insane. The 20% makes sense to a certain degree, the 50% also makes sense to a certain degree, but in reality its a stupid way of rating a PSU's efficiency.

If I were to create a PSU rating system, it would be measured by DC output measured in Watts rather than as a percentage - in pretty much the same chart format that SPCR uses, a Wattage is listed with its efficiency listed next to it -if someone wants to write platinum or gold next to those numbers that's up to them.

Let me explain my thinking and why I ignore the "official 80+ rating" entirely and look at the actual efficiency at various wattages provided to us with thanks to SPCR.

I have a 500W PSU in my PC, it provides far more power than my PC can possibly use, that makes the 100% load totally worthless and although I suggest that people buy a PSU that provides "a little more power" than they need most people buy a PSU with several hundred Watts more power than they need because they do not understand that a more accurate PSU sizing will be better even if they all have the same "80+ rating" because its the bottom end of the spectrum where the PC spends most of its time (idling) that's the most important. Also most "enthusiasts" will work out a maximum wattage that their PC will draw and then add a chunk to that to be safe - this makes the 100% efficiency rating a total mockery - it would be better aimed at 80% or 90%.

The 20% number is stupid as mentioned above and here is why. If I were to buy a 1000W 80+ Platinum rated PSU for (an example) PC that uses 120W power at maximum draw and idles at 30W, I would not just be wasting a huge amount of money on that very expensive PSU, but an 80+ Bronze PSU at a much lower power rating would actually be more efficient when the PC is at idle.

Examples and evidence.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1242-page3.html

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article806-page5.html

As you will see comparing these 2 PSU's, at the low 40W level the Bronze PSU is 3.5% more efficient than the Platinum, at the 66W level the Bronze PSU is just 0.8% less efficient than its 4-year newer designed Platinum counterpart. Now you will see that this way of measuring power is pretty stupid.

Below is a far more even competition. The same 1000W Platinum PSU vs its little 550W Platinum brother, lets see who wins the efficiency race with our 120W PC.

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1242-page3.html

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article1203-page3.html

As you will see comparing these 2 PSU's, at the low 40W level the 550W PSU is a huge 8.3% more efficient, at the 66W level the 550W PSU is 8.9% more efficient and even at the max draw of this 120W PC there is still a 4.6% difference in favour of the lower power rated model.

The average PC enthusiast simply wont recognise the "real" PSU efficiency differences between these 2 PSU's that have an identical efficiency rating - whats at fault here is the efficiency rating methodology rather than the pursuit (which I endorse) of pushing for higher efficiency PSU's and other PC components.

I firmly believe that if the methodology was changed then the industry would start to push far more lower powered high efficiency PSU's than they do currently.


Andy

Andy, I think it'll take more than changing 80+ test methods. It's in the PSU mfgrs' self interest to sell the higher wattage supplies as the profit margin is much higher. Why would they opt to change the consumers' false views?

Very true. What you must also look at is that to get the manufacturers buy-in to a scheme like 80+, they need to have the ability to improve sales. Regulation which means that they have to keep redesigning their products needs to be balanced with something for them - the ability to market units as being more efficient but also a way to sell people more than they need. The 80+ scheme does this.

The 100% rating is not entirely without merit though. The fact it is tested at the rated power means that the PSU has to be able to output that power in some semi-realistic, regulated, longterm fashion. This means you can't have the situation you had 10 years ago where cheap unbranded PSUs rated at 500W could not output 500W, the same thing SilenX carried on doing for years.

That's precisely what I think as well. I expect that the whole 80+ standard was created with the PSU manufacturers for the sole purpose of improving their profit margins and by also being more efficient will appeal to the (ever growing) green-market.

This is not to say that the entire 80+ scheme is bogus, far from it, it really has improved the efficiency of a large proportion of the PSU's for sale, but the caveat is that its very structure pushes potential buyers towards the top end of the market with the sole purpose of lining their own pockets.



I would say that it has further "polarised" the market, 10-years ago there were still two groups of PSU's, the dirt cheap models made by companies that no-one has ever heard of, and the known quality brands that give a 3+ year warranty as standard.

Either way, it would be good for more potential PSU buyers to read the SPCR reviews and see the large difference between Platinum PSU's with different power ratings.


Andy

I think overall the 80 Plus branding had a positive effect in making consumers more aware of the power draw of their electronics and of course in stimulating production of better and more efficient power supplies. I imagine that if 80 Plus had not happened we'd still have had kilowatt PSUs.

I will also note that while there were certainly never as many options as in the more profitable 500+W product group, 80 Plus PSUs rated below 400W have always been available. And now more are hitting the market.

i agree, the whole 80+ standard is an instrument of marketing first and a sign of a certain quality level second.

But, as someone pointed out in another thread, you'll still have to do the thinking yourself. I. E. paying a difference of more than 40$ for going gold over bronze doesn't make any sense, financially.

The "standard" does not even consider the different efficiency levels given when testing at 110 or 230V, it surely falls short.

I'm not really sure of what you're trying to say here. 80 Plus tests at 110V because they cater to the U.S. market. Don't like it? Start a 230V certification programme.

Not that there would be a lot gained, because the vast majority of PSUs actually show better efficiency at 230V than 110V.

The only criticism I have of the 80 Plus programme is that they don't certify low loads, which is where modern PCs spend most of their time. Clearly they are aware of this as they do certify server PSUs at 10% load. I would be glad of an explanation of why they don't do the same for desktop PSUs.

Actually, 80 Plus does specify different (higher) target efficiencies for 230VAC input. Not sure when they started this, it was not always so.

I agree that the Bronze Silver, Gold, Platinum categories become useless when you compare category PSUs of different power rating because of the reliance on % of rated load rather than specific watts.

In fact, those metal medals definitions are similar to defining "medal" winners and losers in the Olympics -- when the difference between best and worst is measured in less than 0.1% of the total performance (however you want to define it), why even bother? It's the obsessive competitive human desire to constantly create hierarchy -- winners & losers -- that is at the root of this.

Anyway, I'm glad andyb brought up the topic. It's one of the the points of discussion I brought up to the creators of 80 Plus when they asked for my opinions some months before the program was launched.

Even using % efficiency is misleading, especially at the low end: At 20W load, A is 70% efficient & B is 65% efficient. 5% difference looks significant, but it turns out to be 28.6W input vs 30.8W -- just 2.2W. But 85% vs 90% efficiency -- 5% difference -- at 500W load is 588W vs 555W, or 33W. Another reason why they should have used WATT numbers, not percentages, right from the start.

But it probably would not have found as easy market acceptance.

It probably helps to understand how/why the program got launched:



It was about saving the utilities money by reducing demand so that they didn't have to expand the electricity generation capacity, which is very costly. 80 Plus was one of the programs Ecos Consulting came up with to reach this goal, and the rebate $$ came directly from the utilities. As the program gathered steam, they hooked up with Energy Star and then it turned into an industry-wide thing, which is exactly what they'd hoped.

I wrote another piece when they expanded the definitions & got more commercial. 80 Plus expands podium for Bronze, Silver & Gold

The 80 Plus program is flawed in many ways, and will probably remains so, but it has definitely made an impact on overall PSU efficiency in the computer industry. 10 years ago, 70% was pretty damn good efficiency for any computer PSU. Today, the average is better than 80%. Would PSUs have become more efficient anyway? Sure, but having a standard everyone could rally around -- and were forced participate -- made it happen faster & more thoroughly. (Some old timers might recall the wild west days before Intel took a controlling role in ramming standards and protocols down everyone's throats for all kinds of things (ATX, AT, PCI, AGP, etc, etc). It was a mess... and those standards made rapid industry-wide cooperative progress possible. )

When last I checked there 80Plus had a separate certification program for server PSUs that happened to be tested using 230VAC. Is that what you are referring to? (I see no mention of 230VAC in some recent test reports for desktop PSUs.)

Yes, you are right, I stand corrected. The 230VAC targets appear to be specific to PSUs for servers -- "redundant, data center applications".

But, the absence of 230VA test results for "desktop PSUs" isn't a real issue, as efficiency changes pretty much the same way w/ all PSUs when going between 115V and 230VAC. If 90% is the "gold" requirement at 115VAC, it stands to reason that the target should be 92 or 93% at 230VAC -- the server PSU Gold target is 92%, in fact.

This 350W PSU has been discontinued at least half a year ago ...... I got one at 63USD from the last batch.
It's very quiet, I didn't experience hum tonality described in SPCR review. Plus, it came with 5yr warranty which is icing on the cake.

Good to hear about no hum... but if it really was discontinued half a year ago, why would company reps agree to send me samples at Computex (June, about 5 most ago) and have them shipped over in Sept?

To look for potential market for a replacement product? You review the Gold model, like it, everyone here raves about it and demands such a PSU, their marketing team assesses the potential market for a future 350W Platinum unit. By all means if anyone from Super Flower is reading and can tell that this is not to any extent true, feel free to do so.

Maybe they happened to keep a few samples in inventory and wanted to broadcast company's reputation? I got mine on Feb, and it's already the last batch on the market.....

I spent some (probably too much) time looking at power loss vs load power for many of the PSUs reviewed. Go here for some chart-fu.

FWIW, Tom's also has really useful PSU charts, including measurements at standby, 25W and 50W.

The trouble with all of those compilations is that they express the data in efficiency % -- which means the actual wattage differences vary with power load -- at 50W, for example, the watts wasted difference between 80% and 75% is nothing like the same % difference at 500W... but the TH data does not show this. Which is why Steve's examination of SPCR tested PSU load/efficiency data by WATTS is so much more tangible. (ie, relevant & realistic)

Much thanks Steve! I think those charts are worth saving and running as a main SPCR article. We'll talk later.

Just a quick note on one of your quotes in the article where it really shows that you haven't paid enough attention to construction which really messes up your conclusion:



No, no, no, no, no. No. Bad. This is not the point of 105deg caps. The temperature rating is not something absolute. Capacitors have a very *very* limited electrolyte lifetime. For instance, most caps used in power supplies (even high-quality ones) are rated at 2000 hours lifetime at rated temperature, with very sparse exceptions of 5000hrs. As a rule of thumb, this lifetime doubles for every 10 degrees you operate below that temperature. Needless to say, 2000 hours is rubbish, so PSU mfgrs use 105deg rated caps so they can operate them 40ish degrees below rated temperature and actually get 32khrs out of them, which is about 4 years of non-stop use. This is also the reason for fans even existing in power supplies, basically all other devices can operate at substantially higher temperatures without losing function or rating.

Having 85deg rated caps is pretty horrible. This means that in a hot box, i.e. a computer with 45-55 degree internal (air) temperature and PSU internals hovering around 65 degrees, you only get about a year's worth of continuous use. And indeed, in this unit are pretty B-grade CapXon brand 85 degree, 2000hr LP series (http://arwill.hu/downloads/capxonlp.pdf) primary caps. On the secondary side there is a lot of CapXon crappy rated stuff and even worse nowadays, Su'scon. Bargain bin capacitors.

Bottom line: this unit is definitely not worth your editor's choice. The unit will fail from capacitor malfunction within its rated lifetime under even very moderate thermal and load situations. It will probably fail even under very light load. It's crap. If you want this kind of power supply, buy a G-serie, which has Nippon Chemi-con and Hitachi all the way, 105 degree rated caps. Avoid the SF Golden Green 350W.

As a point of interest, what is the actual temperature the capacitors would be running at under normal load? Has anyone ever measured this?

I've measured it on a couple of occasions. I tend to make silent or near-silent systems (as in: if at all possible no fans). An ivy bridge system in a Fractal Define 3 at idle gave me almost no temperature rise (<10 degrees), at full load about 35 degrees. Ambient temp was probably between 18 and 21deg, so that's 55ish max temp. I haven't actually measured the capacitor temps, but those things hardly dissipate any energy so as long as they're not contacting hot surfaces/heatsinks they should be the same temperature as the surrounding air. That's with 2 fans in total (outtake + PSU, semipassive CPU heatsink).

I also measured temps on my parent's system: Antec NSK3480 w/G530 system. tad over 20W idle, 60W load, Antec Earthwatts 380W. That power supply was absolutely covered in dust over the years (it has been used in a previous system as well) and my thermocouple said the PSU hovered around 20 degrees temp increase under normal use. That is a worst-case scenario, after cleaning the dust there was almost no measurable temp increase (like 5 degrees).

But this is all just anecdotal evidence. This stuff varies so much that there's no real way to tell without measuring in a fixed benchmark system.

Please review more smaller capacity PS's. I have several PCs in my house but I am not a gamer. Even my media server doesn't draw more than a few hundred W. My main desktop PCs have integrated GPUs and in the future they will all have SSDs - I doubt that any such PCs will even draw more than 150W.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolytic_capacitor can serve as a reference for this estimate.

I wonder, however, if 65C is a realistic number for the internals given that in SPCR's hot box test the measured exhaust temperature was only 39C at full load (with the fan working harder). But even if the temperature of the capacitor is very close to the exhaust tempature (say, 45C), then the projected lifespan is still less than four years of continuous use, according to this rule of thumb.

Your points about the reason for 105C caps seem well taken, I defer to your greater knowledge about capacitors... and perhaps you're right in saying a product with lower quality caps should not get an EC, but remember that noise & performance when tested are the #1 criteria. A basic assumption I make for recommendations & EC is that the product will be used for low noise application, using methods long described/espoused by SPCR.

Your real-use scenario of a computer with 45-55C internal air temp is way off base. This is a 350W PSU. 99% of users will not push it much past 200W in a peak, and the vast majority of users will use a case where the PSU gets direct outside air intake. Under those conditions, the PSU exhaust air will not differ from what I recorded with the thing on the open bench, excepting high ambient room temps in hotter climates. In other words, your real-use temp conjectures are about 15C too high.