Comments

Tech Diver wrote on 6/3/2015, 9:08 AM
New Egg (as well as other sites) have an interactive power supply calculator: http://images10.newegg.com/BizIntell/tool/psucalc/index.html?name=Power-Supply-Wattage-Calculator . You should also be aware that power supplies degenerate in their output by 10%-15% in just a few years, so you need to get a slightly larger output unit to compensate. Lastly, you need to be aware of the difference between a single-rail and multi-rail system (I would never get anything other than a single-rail supply).

Peter


Edit: This calculator goes into greater detail: http://powersupplycalculator.net/
OldSmoke wrote on 6/3/2015, 9:12 AM
Fosko

We don't know your current system specs but 400W seems very small.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

Tech Diver wrote on 6/3/2015, 9:23 AM
I agree with Old Smoke that 400w is quite small, particularly since a high-end graphics card alone can pull 150w or more. Frankly, I would size it as much as 50% more than what a load calculator tells you, as it doesn't cost a whole lot more to do so.

Peter
FoskeyMedia wrote on 6/3/2015, 10:16 AM
wow gret guys thanks. I don't have my specs handy..but I'll post soon. I do know it's a Dell I7 with 16 gb ram. I TB HD. running dual monitors. a number of USB (at least 5 at any given time) I'll have to look up processor and Graphic card when i get home.

So will this effect performance ?
ddm wrote on 6/3/2015, 11:06 AM
You'll probably have to open your case and take a look at the power supply you have. Lots of Dell models use a smaller than standard size power supply, which might limit your choices.
FoskeyMedia wrote on 6/3/2015, 12:07 PM
I've built PCs before (most if us have) but never gave any thought to the power supply. Always used what was there and never thought of it, I was going to go cheap because I didn't think it matters. Now I see quality is not much more than cheap and I'm sure well worth it.
videoITguy wrote on 6/3/2015, 12:12 PM
The power supply creep has occurred over the years. Back in 386 PC days the unit was small and we burned thru them pretty fast.

Newer platforms are more power efficient and power supplies may be built with more integrity - BUT that is not certain!

We have moved from a basic 350 watt of 8 years ago to about 700 watt average today.
FoskeyMedia wrote on 6/3/2015, 12:57 PM
So can I expect petter performance with more wattage ?
OldSmoke wrote on 6/3/2015, 1:06 PM
It will make the system more stable and less prune to power fluctuations.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

musicvid10 wrote on 6/3/2015, 1:49 PM
"It will make the system more stable and less prune to power fluctuations."
Yes, by all means. The less prunes, the better.

OldSmoke wrote on 6/3/2015, 1:58 PM
[I]Yes, by all means. The less prunes, the better.[/I]

LOL! How one letter can change the world!

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

DrLumen wrote on 6/3/2015, 4:58 PM
Not that it causes any type of system problems but overkill on a power supply is just a waste of money.

As to typos, we surely wouldn't want to transpose the S & K in hard disk. It happened once in help desk service case - big drama!

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

Dach wrote on 6/3/2015, 5:07 PM
While I agree that there is a difference in brand quality, it takes quite a bit to demand much more than a 500 - 600 watt power supply. Unless your throwing a big video card into the system, I would suggest buy within your budget and let the money go to the quality versus the potential maximum output. Just my two cents.

Chad
VidMus wrote on 6/3/2015, 5:18 PM
One important thing to remember is that many newer power supplies require a true sign wave from the outlet which also many UPS's do not provide.

If you have a UPS and if it does not put out a true sign wave then it can be damaged. I had an APC UPS that I had just put new batteries in and then I got a new power supply and BAM!, my UPS was damaged and no longer usable.

So keep this in mind when buying a new power supply.

I second the part about having a single rail.

Also note that wattage is not the only thing to consider. Some time ago I had a 500 watt supply and a 400 watt supply. The 400 watt supply provided the needed amps for my video card and the 500 watt supply did not.

So check ALL of the specifications when buying one.

OldSmoke wrote on 6/3/2015, 5:25 PM
500W is borderline for desend editing workstation. You don't want to run the power supply constantly over 90% load, it won't last very long.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

riredale wrote on 6/3/2015, 6:55 PM
Yes, but...

I was shocked by how little power my PC actually consumed. I found this out by plugging my PC power supply into one of those $15 power meters. As I vaguely recall, idle was about 125w, render was about 250w.

I have a 600w supply and it's overkill based on the above numbers. But I do NOT have an expensive state-of-the-art graphics card, which as indicated can draw 100w all by itself.

I'd suggest using one of the calculators mentioned. Also, I've had one power supply blow out on me, taking several hard drives with it. It was super cheap. So I'd suggest a name brand.
OldSmoke wrote on 6/3/2015, 7:24 PM
A single R9 290 will draw up to 300W at 100% load. One of the main causes of system failure and instability is poor and unstable power supply.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

john_dennis wrote on 6/3/2015, 7:55 PM
This is what I used for my last build in 2012. It's still doing the job.

I had a disk drive catch fire and smoke up another system with a 430 Watt unit and I policy replaced it with this one on my way home from work. I still have the old 430 Watt unit in case I have to limp along until I get a new one.

I'm with riredale on the relatively low "typical" demand on power supplies. I generally don't have demanding video cards (nor do I want to). There are other factors to consider. I found the modular cables in my last two power supplies to be worth the money. The velvet bag to store the cables that I'm not using at the moment is nice but really adds little value to the editing experience.

[I]"Will it effect my performance?"[/I]

If your current power supply can keep your system running without fault, having a better one won't affect your editing experience or render performance. A Gold rated one might affect your electric bill and the noise you have to hear while editing.

My main system:
Motherboard: Asus X99-AII
CPU: Intel i7-6850K
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX480-8GB
RAM: Corsair Dominator (4 x 4 GB) DDR4 2400
Disk O/S & Programs: Intel SSD 750 (400 GB)
Disk Active Projects: 1TB & 2TB WD BLACK SN750 NVMe Internal PCI Express 3.0 x4 Solid State Drives
Disk Other: WD Ultrastar/Hitachi Hard Drives: WDBBUR0080BNC-WRSN, HGST HUH728080ALE600, 724040ALE640, HDS3020BLA642
Case: LIAN LI PC-90 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case
CPU cooling: Corsair Hydro series H115i
Power supply: SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Drive Bay: Kingwin KF-256-BK 2.5" and 3.5" Trayless Hot Swap Rack with USB 3
Sound card: Crystal Sound 3 on motherboard. Recording done on another system.
Primary Monitor: Asus ProArt PA248q (24" 1920 x 1200)
O/S: Windows 10 Pro 190943
Camera: Sony RX10 Model IV

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedennischannel

wwaag wrote on 6/3/2015, 11:42 PM
Just hooked up a Kill-A-Watt meter to my I7-3770K oc'd to 4.3 Ghz, 8HD's (2SSD's), dual monitors, 2 display adapters (HD4000 and Nvidia 650). Then did a 15 min render to Handbrake in which CPU was pretty much pegged at 100%. According to the meter, it fluctuated between 230 and 235 watts. Rendered the same material using Quick-Sync (CPU dropped to around 75%), and the overall watts went down to around 225. Bottom line to me is that unless you have one or more high-end graphic cards, you really don't need that large of a PS. I believe that mine was rated at 650 watts, but was a pretty high-end Antec.

wwaag

AKA the HappyOtter at https://tools4vegas.com/. System 1: Intel i7-8700k with HD 630 graphics plus an Nvidia 1050ti graphics card. System 2: Intel i7-3770k with HD 4000 graphics plus an AMD RX550 graphics card. Current cameras include Panasonic FZ2500, GoPro Hero5 Black plus a myriad of smartPhone, pocket cameras, video cameras and film cameras going back to the original Nikon S.

OldSmoke wrote on 6/4/2015, 6:56 AM
The 650 is a low end card and not even supported by Vegas so all the power consumption you see comes from your CPU and the rest of the components. I use up to 670W when rendering.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

musicvid10 wrote on 6/4/2015, 6:58 AM
The only thing one normally needs to be aware of are 12v and 5v stability.
If 5v fluctuates over time, system stability is at risk.
Wrt gross power consumption, its useful to know, but not a good diagnostic.
wwaag wrote on 6/4/2015, 10:42 AM
@OldSmoke

The 650 is a low end card and not even supported by Vegas

You're right about the 650 being a low end card but wrong about not being supported in Vegas. It does NOT provide any significant GPU assist for rendering Sony AVC or Mainconcept AVC, but it DOES help with effects processing--at least on my system. Here are a couple of threads I reported awhile back.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=866636

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=872603

They both show better preview performance and decreased rendering times when the GPU of the 650 was turned on. At the time I was mostly doing MPEG-2 renders using Procoder while frameserving from Vegas. The improvements were especially dramatic when using the ColorMatch Fx--e.g. a 13 fold reduction in rendering time and an increase in preview performance for 3-4 fps to 59 fps. Obviously, the amount of assist is dependent upon the particular effect, but it does work and for that reason, I always leave GPU ON--again, the caveat being--my system. I'm well aware of problems that others have reported and the conventional wisdom to simply leave GPU turned OFF.

wwaag

AKA the HappyOtter at https://tools4vegas.com/. System 1: Intel i7-8700k with HD 630 graphics plus an Nvidia 1050ti graphics card. System 2: Intel i7-3770k with HD 4000 graphics plus an AMD RX550 graphics card. Current cameras include Panasonic FZ2500, GoPro Hero5 Black plus a myriad of smartPhone, pocket cameras, video cameras and film cameras going back to the original Nikon S.

BruceUSA wrote on 6/4/2015, 11:03 AM
If you really want to find out how well or satisfying with your graphic card performance in Vegas. You should use the Sony Press Release Project Benchmark. Why, because this project specially designed to put your system to its knees with multi layers and heavily FX applied. I hear the same thing, some people claimed the GTX970 work good with Vegas but when asked them to run the benchmark and report back. Then you never hear from them again. The simple answer is newer Nivida cards sucks at the movement for Vegas.