BF2S Forums [tcMag] Koolance delays its water-cooled 1700W PSU

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

jamiet757 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Watercooling setups add more heat than ordinary coolers? Doesn't make any sense.

A watercooled power supply would add more heat than necessary to your cooling loop. You didn't read my post at all did you?

It is just as easy to cool a PSU with air, and it will not gain any performance benefits, so what is the point in adding all that heat from the PSU to your watercooling loop?

Tell me how do you know its easy to cool a 1700W PSU on air? You tested that PSU and checked temps or what? People don't say its fail until there are some reviews. Maybe in future this will be the only way to cool components. And jamiet don't be a fucking smartass. Explain why would watecooling kit add to more heat or don't reply.

A watercooling kit does not add more heat, that monster of a PSU will add tons of heat to the watercooling setup, reducing it's efficiencly a lot. If it's so hot that it can't be cooled with air, it's gotta be generating like 2-300 watts of heat. That itself is a really great point in not getting this thing. Adding 200w of heat to already existing 400w from quad graphics cards and 120 from a quad core, the water cooling setup will be a lot less effective.

.Sup wrote:

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

I doubt the new series graphics cards will use much more power than the current generation. We saw in G92 that they're actually trying to do something about that tremendous heat generation graphics cards have.

You doubt they will use so much power? Why not wait and see.  I remember a guy saying in 98: you don't need 256mb of memory in your PC but I went anyway and bought a PC with 256mb of memory.

You can't compare RAM with modern graphics cards in this discussion, especially not when it's about power supplies and how much power the next-gen graphics cards will use. You're right now saying, if we apply your RAM theory on the graphics cards in question, that more power consumption is a good thing. Which it obviously isn't. If computers are going to be using over a kilowatt of power, people will stop buying computers, as they're way too expensive to run. I think manufacturers will rather decrease their temperatures than increasing their cooling systems, just as Intel did with their new Core architecture. Then it got a bit too hot, and they switched to 45nm, new architecture, and the TDPs dropped below 100w again. The same thing will happen to the graphics cards very soon.

mikkel wrote:

killer21 wrote:

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

What kind of kakamania system needs 1700w ?!

A time machine?

Don't be a fool. You need 1.21 jiggawatts for that.

~80mph.

ghettoperson wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Don't be a fool. You need 1.21 jiggawatts for that.

~80mph.

88 n00b!

Pop qwiz winnar hear.

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

.Sup wrote:

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

Even when you run 3 9800GTX's or 2 9800GX2's, a 1000w would suffice. I find this just an example of who has the bigger e-penis.'Whoowooo, we have made a 1700w PSU but we have it watercooled otherwise it would go Chernobyl'

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

Oke so what system needs 1700w. A high-end gaming system needs 1000-1200, a server 500w, a workstation 750-800w.

That's absurd. A decent gaming system doesn't take much more than 500W tops. I have a Dell PowerEdge with a 650W PSU that pulls two Quad-core Xeon E5430 processors and a four disk 15k RPM RAID system with 8GiB of RAM in a 1U configuration, and even that isn't pulling 500W. A 750W workstation? A normal workstation doesn't exceed 300W.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-05-01 04:43:13)

ghettoperson wrote:

mikkel wrote:

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

Oke so what system needs 1700w. A high-end gaming system needs 1000-1200, a server 500w, a workstation 750-800w.

That's absurd. A decent gaming system doesn't take much more than 500W tops. I have a Dell PowerEdge with a 650W PSU that pulls two Quad-core Xeon E5430 processors and a four disk 15k RPM RAID system with 8GiB of RAM in a 1U configuration, and even that isn't pulling 500W. A 750W workstation? A normal workstation doesn't exceed 300W.

If when we say 'high end' we mean 'has triple SLi' then yes, you do need 1kw.

There's a difference between high end and ultra high end.

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

jamiet757 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Watercooling setups add more heat than ordinary coolers? Doesn't make any sense.

A watercooled power supply would add more heat than necessary to your cooling loop. You didn't read my post at all did you?

It is just as easy to cool a PSU with air, and it will not gain any performance benefits, so what is the point in adding all that heat from the PSU to your watercooling loop?

Tell me how do you know its easy to cool a 1700W PSU on air? You tested that PSU and checked temps or what? People don't say its fail until there are some reviews. Maybe in future this will be the only way to cool components. And jamiet don't be a fucking smartass. Explain why would watecooling kit add to more heat or don't reply.

A watercooling kit does not add more heat, that monster of a PSU will add tons of heat to the watercooling setup, reducing it's efficiencly a lot. If it's so hot that it can't be cooled with air, it's gotta be generating like 2-300 watts of heat. That itself is a really great point in not getting this thing. Adding 200w of heat to already existing 400w from quad graphics cards and 120 from a quad core, the water cooling setup will be a lot less effective.

.Sup wrote:

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

I doubt the new series graphics cards will use much more power than the current generation. We saw in G92 that they're actually trying to do something about that tremendous heat generation graphics cards have.

You doubt they will use so much power? Why not wait and see.  I remember a guy saying in 98: you don't need 256mb of memory in your PC but I went anyway and bought a PC with 256mb of memory.

You can't compare RAM with modern graphics cards in this discussion, especially not when it's about power supplies and how much power the next-gen graphics cards will use. You're right now saying, if we apply your RAM theory on the graphics cards in question, that more power consumption is a good thing. Which it obviously isn't. If computers are going to be using over a kilowatt of power, people will stop buying computers, as they're way too expensive to run. I think manufacturers will rather decrease their temperatures than increasing their cooling systems, just as Intel did with their new Core architecture. Then it got a bit too hot, and they switched to 45nm, new architecture, and the TDPs dropped below 100w again. The same thing will happen to the graphics cards very soon.

You turned my words around. I'm not saying more power hungry GFX cards are better, i'm saying more power will be needed soon. My first PC had 200W PSu, next PC had 350, the 550 and now 720(and i only have one card, some have 4).

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

.Sup wrote:

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

Even when you run 3 9800GTX's or 2 9800GX2's, a 1000w would suffice. I find this just an example of who has the bigger e-penis.'Whoowooo, we have made a 1700w PSU but we have it watercooled otherwise it would go Chernobyl'

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

Oke so what system needs 1700w. A high-end gaming system needs 1000-1200, a server 500w, a workstation 750-800w.

Read my post again. This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. The PSU isn't out yet that means it will be available when more power hungry cards are available. No one will buy a 1700W PSU if you don't need it.

Piont being, this product is useless, obsolete and not good for your electricity bill.

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

jamiet757 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Watercooling setups add more heat than ordinary coolers? Doesn't make any sense.

A watercooled power supply would add more heat than necessary to your cooling loop. You didn't read my post at all did you?

It is just as easy to cool a PSU with air, and it will not gain any performance benefits, so what is the point in adding all that heat from the PSU to your watercooling loop?

Tell me how do you know its easy to cool a 1700W PSU on air? You tested that PSU and checked temps or what? People don't say its fail until there are some reviews. Maybe in future this will be the only way to cool components. And jamiet don't be a fucking smartass. Explain why would watecooling kit add to more heat or don't reply.

A watercooling kit does not add more heat, that monster of a PSU will add tons of heat to the watercooling setup, reducing it's efficiencly a lot. If it's so hot that it can't be cooled with air, it's gotta be generating like 2-300 watts of heat. That itself is a really great point in not getting this thing. Adding 200w of heat to already existing 400w from quad graphics cards and 120 from a quad core, the water cooling setup will be a lot less effective.

.Sup wrote:

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

I doubt the new series graphics cards will use much more power than the current generation. We saw in G92 that they're actually trying to do something about that tremendous heat generation graphics cards have.

You doubt they will use so much power? Why not wait and see.  I remember a guy saying in 98: you don't need 256mb of memory in your PC but I went anyway and bought a PC with 256mb of memory.

You can't compare RAM with modern graphics cards in this discussion, especially not when it's about power supplies and how much power the next-gen graphics cards will use. You're right now saying, if we apply your RAM theory on the graphics cards in question, that more power consumption is a good thing. Which it obviously isn't. If computers are going to be using over a kilowatt of power, people will stop buying computers, as they're way too expensive to run. I think manufacturers will rather decrease their temperatures than increasing their cooling systems, just as Intel did with their new Core architecture. Then it got a bit too hot, and they switched to 45nm, new architecture, and the TDPs dropped below 100w again. The same thing will happen to the graphics cards very soon.

You turned my words around. I'm not saying more power hungry GFX cards are better, i'm saying more power will be needed soon. My first PC had 200W PSu, next PC had 350, the 550 and now 720(and i only have one card, some have 4).

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

.Sup wrote:

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

Oke so what system needs 1700w. A high-end gaming system needs 1000-1200, a server 500w, a workstation 750-800w.

Read my post again. This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. The PSU isn't out yet that means it will be available when more power hungry cards are available. No one will buy a 1700W PSU if you don't need it.

Yes,  recently PC power requirements have spiked, but it's reached the climax now. They simply cannot make more power-hungry cards, it's simply not practical, the cooling solutions required will be too loud, ineffective and expensive. Things will start using less power now, as jamiet pointed out. Did you notice what happened when Intel went from Prescott and Cedar Mill to Conroe? TDP wattage decreased by 50%! This is now happening to the graphics card market, ATIs HD2900 series being the equivalent to Prescott, and the 38*0 series the equivalent to Conroe. G80 Prescott, G92 Conroe. Cards will not use more power than they already do! If anything, they will use LESS power as technology grows more mature.

This is also exactly what I mean with you arguing all the time. You will fight to death for your cause, no matter what it is. About everyone here disagrees with you, but yet you refuse to surrender.

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

jamiet757 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Watercooling setups add more heat than ordinary coolers? Doesn't make any sense.

A watercooled power supply would add more heat than necessary to your cooling loop. You didn't read my post at all did you?

It is just as easy to cool a PSU with air, and it will not gain any performance benefits, so what is the point in adding all that heat from the PSU to your watercooling loop?

Tell me how do you know its easy to cool a 1700W PSU on air? You tested that PSU and checked temps or what? People don't say its fail until there are some reviews. Maybe in future this will be the only way to cool components. And jamiet don't be a fucking smartass. Explain why would watecooling kit add to more heat or don't reply.

A watercooling kit does not add more heat, that monster of a PSU will add tons of heat to the watercooling setup, reducing it's efficiencly a lot. If it's so hot that it can't be cooled with air, it's gotta be generating like 2-300 watts of heat. That itself is a really great point in not getting this thing. Adding 200w of heat to already existing 400w from quad graphics cards and 120 from a quad core, the water cooling setup will be a lot less effective.

.Sup wrote:

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

I doubt the new series graphics cards will use much more power than the current generation. We saw in G92 that they're actually trying to do something about that tremendous heat generation graphics cards have.

You doubt they will use so much power? Why not wait and see.  I remember a guy saying in 98: you don't need 256mb of memory in your PC but I went anyway and bought a PC with 256mb of memory.

You can't compare RAM with modern graphics cards in this discussion, especially not when it's about power supplies and how much power the next-gen graphics cards will use. You're right now saying, if we apply your RAM theory on the graphics cards in question, that more power consumption is a good thing. Which it obviously isn't. If computers are going to be using over a kilowatt of power, people will stop buying computers, as they're way too expensive to run. I think manufacturers will rather decrease their temperatures than increasing their cooling systems, just as Intel did with their new Core architecture. Then it got a bit too hot, and they switched to 45nm, new architecture, and the TDPs dropped below 100w again. The same thing will happen to the graphics cards very soon.

You turned my words around. I'm not saying more power hungry GFX cards are better, i'm saying more power will be needed soon. My first PC had 200W PSu, next PC had 350, the 550 and now 720(and i only have one card, some have 4).



Read my post again. This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. The PSU isn't out yet that means it will be available when more power hungry cards are available. No one will buy a 1700W PSU if you don't need it.

Yes,  recently PC power requirements have spiked, but it's reached the climax now. They simply cannot make more power-hungry cards, it's simply not practical, the cooling solutions required will be too loud, ineffective and expensive. Things will start using less power now, as jamiet pointed out. Did you notice what happened when Intel went from Prescott and Cedar Mill to Conroe? TDP wattage decreased by 50%! This is now happening to the graphics card market, ATIs HD2900 series being the equivalent to Prescott, and the 38*0 series the equivalent to Conroe. G80 Prescott, G92 Conroe. Cards will not use more power than they already do! If anything, they will use LESS power as technology grows more mature.

This is also exactly what I mean with you arguing all the time. You will fight to death for your cause, no matter what it is. About everyone here disagrees with you, but yet you refuse to surrender.

I'm a fighter, I never surrender. Lets leave power consumption aside for a bit. You said "the cooling solutions required will be too loud, ineffective and expensive"- loud, ineffective- sound like air cooling. So heres watercooling-expensive as always but offers that effectiveness over aircooling and is extemely quiet. Get my point? Some said who needs eight cores, well just wait and see, we will all need 8 cores sometime as well as 1700W PSUs.

Yes, somewhere in time, somewhere in the year 2142, Even my system peaks out at 550w and I have a 580w PSU which can peak at 620w and my system is high end by current standards. For me to use the resting 1100w, I would have to Octo SLI my cards, overclock my CPU at 6.0Ghz and use 4 300GB Velociraptors. There is no use for this product at this time.

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

jamiet757 wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Watercooling setups add more heat than ordinary coolers? Doesn't make any sense.

A watercooled power supply would add more heat than necessary to your cooling loop. You didn't read my post at all did you?

It is just as easy to cool a PSU with air, and it will not gain any performance benefits, so what is the point in adding all that heat from the PSU to your watercooling loop?

Tell me how do you know its easy to cool a 1700W PSU on air? You tested that PSU and checked temps or what? People don't say its fail until there are some reviews. Maybe in future this will be the only way to cool components. And jamiet don't be a fucking smartass. Explain why would watecooling kit add to more heat or don't reply.

A watercooling kit does not add more heat, that monster of a PSU will add tons of heat to the watercooling setup, reducing it's efficiencly a lot. If it's so hot that it can't be cooled with air, it's gotta be generating like 2-300 watts of heat. That itself is a really great point in not getting this thing. Adding 200w of heat to already existing 400w from quad graphics cards and 120 from a quad core, the water cooling setup will be a lot less effective.

.Sup wrote:

It it said the PSU will be delayed. What does that tell you? That it might be released with the new series GFX cards that might actually need that much power. Why do people have 16GB of memory in their PC? Yes some actually need 16Gbs and use all of it.

I doubt the new series graphics cards will use much more power than the current generation. We saw in G92 that they're actually trying to do something about that tremendous heat generation graphics cards have.

You doubt they will use so much power? Why not wait and see.  I remember a guy saying in 98: you don't need 256mb of memory in your PC but I went anyway and bought a PC with 256mb of memory.

You can't compare RAM with modern graphics cards in this discussion, especially not when it's about power supplies and how much power the next-gen graphics cards will use. You're right now saying, if we apply your RAM theory on the graphics cards in question, that more power consumption is a good thing. Which it obviously isn't. If computers are going to be using over a kilowatt of power, people will stop buying computers, as they're way too expensive to run. I think manufacturers will rather decrease their temperatures than increasing their cooling systems, just as Intel did with their new Core architecture. Then it got a bit too hot, and they switched to 45nm, new architecture, and the TDPs dropped below 100w again. The same thing will happen to the graphics cards very soon.

You turned my words around. I'm not saying more power hungry GFX cards are better, i'm saying more power will be needed soon. My first PC had 200W PSu, next PC had 350, the 550 and now 720(and i only have one card, some have 4).



Read my post again. This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. The PSU isn't out yet that means it will be available when more power hungry cards are available. No one will buy a 1700W PSU if you don't need it.

Yes,  recently PC power requirements have spiked, but it's reached the climax now. They simply cannot make more power-hungry cards, it's simply not practical, the cooling solutions required will be too loud, ineffective and expensive. Things will start using less power now, as jamiet pointed out. Did you notice what happened when Intel went from Prescott and Cedar Mill to Conroe? TDP wattage decreased by 50%! This is now happening to the graphics card market, ATIs HD2900 series being the equivalent to Prescott, and the 38*0 series the equivalent to Conroe. G80 Prescott, G92 Conroe. Cards will not use more power than they already do! If anything, they will use LESS power as technology grows more mature.

This is also exactly what I mean with you arguing all the time. You will fight to death for your cause, no matter what it is. About everyone here disagrees with you, but yet you refuse to surrender.

I'm a fighter, I never surrender. Lets leave power consumption aside for a bit. You said "the cooling solutions required will be too loud, ineffective and expensive"- loud, ineffective- sound like air cooling. So heres watercooling-expensive as always but offers that effectiveness over aircooling and is extemely quiet. Get my point? Some said who needs eight cores, well just wait and see, we will all need 8 cores sometime as well as 1700W PSUs.

So, you're saying that nVidia will start shipping all their cards with water cooling kits? That would add a good 100-200 dollars per card. That would also give them a minimal share of the market due to that. Why would they do that instead of making cheaper cards that can run fine on cheap air stock coolers, don't require this kind of PSU, and get a huge part of the market instead?

Your point is invalidated, as there is no point in making expensive water cooling a must. Not to even mention how much maintenance water cooling requires compared to air, and how no averege gamer would be able to maintain that.

Also, LOL at the mega-quote pyramid.

.Sup wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

.Sup wrote:

I'm a fighter, I never surrender. Lets leave power consumption aside for a bit. You said "the cooling solutions required will be too loud, ineffective and expensive"- loud, ineffective- sound like air cooling. So heres watercooling-expensive as always but offers that effectiveness over aircooling and is extemely quiet. Get my point? Some said who needs eight cores, well just wait and see, we will all need 8 cores sometime as well as 1700W PSUs.

So, you're saying that nVidia will start shipping all their cards with water cooling kits? That would add a good 100-200 dollars per card. That would also give them a minimal share of the market due to that. Why would they do that instead of making cheaper cards that can run fine on cheap air stock coolers, don't require this kind of PSU, and get a huge part of the market instead?

Your point is invalidated, as there is no point in making expensive water cooling a must. Not to even mention how much maintenance water cooling requires compared to air, and how no averege gamer would be able to maintain that.

Also, LOL at the mega-quote pyramid.

You are making stuff up. I didn't say watercooling is a must i was only saying if you want effective and quiet cooling get a watercooling kit. Now for some aircooling is effective enough but different people have different standards. If you had been reading xtremesystems forums you would see tthat most of them all use watercooling.

That is not a reason for the whole world to use WC.

.Sup wrote:

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

.Sup wrote:

You are making stuff up. I didn't say watercooling is a must i was only saying if you want effective and quiet cooling get a watercooling kit. Now for some aircooling is effective enough but different people have different standards. If you had been reading xtremesystems forums you would see tthat most of them all use watercooling.

That is not a reason for the whole world to use WC.

lol tell me what is the reason that people use watercooling?

Because they want to reach higher Clocks where normal air-cooling is not enough but that's not the piont, this is a de-rail. Subject was the kakamania 1700w watercooled PSU that nobody on the planet needs.

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

.Sup wrote:

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox wrote:

That is not a reason for the whole world to use WC.

lol tell me what is the reason that people use watercooling?

Because they want to reach higher Clocks where normal air-cooling is not enough but that's not the piont, this is a de-rail. Subject was the kakamania 1700w watercooled PSU that nobody on the planet needs.

"water cooled power supply is fail."---->this was the first reply to this topic.