EDIT: even if it wasnt your psu, this one is a good basis for a new comp
€ 142 for a power supply, in a system that will never draw 250 W from it? That's crazy. If you're going to spend that kind of money, you might as well at least get a Seasonic X-series, which is completely overkill for most people.
you are right, for his system it might be of too high quality, but your second statemant honestly is not true. The seasonic x series is by all means inferior to cougar gold series my friend
Well then, let's have a clean comparison between them. Seasonic sent their X-series power supplies all over for reviews. Cougar was far less aggressive about it, but there was one good site that they sent their GX700 to, which lets us at least get a pretty clean comparison.
Same site, so it's the same methodology. The Seasonic X-650 is about 2% higher in energy efficiency than the Cougar GX700 across the board, and tops out at 2.2% higher. The Seasonic has about half of the ripple at max load of the Cougar, and less than half on the critical +12 V rails.
The Cougar GX600 also has very loose voltage regulation on the -12 V rail, as reported by the 80 PLUS organization. Hardly anything uses the -12 V rail anymore, so you could argue that it doesn't matter, but you'd rather not have that flaw than have it.
EDIT: even if it wasnt your psu, this one is a good basis for a new comp
€ 142 for a power supply, in a system that will never draw 250 W from it? That's crazy. If you're going to spend that kind of money, you might as well at least get a Seasonic X-series, which is completely overkill for most people.
you are right, for his system it might be of too high quality, but your second statemant honestly is not true. The seasonic x series is by all means inferior to cougar gold series my friend
Well then, let's have a clean comparison between them. Seasonic sent their X-series power supplies all over for reviews. Cougar was far less aggressive about it, but there was one good site that they sent their GX700 to, which lets us at least get a pretty clean comparison.
Same site, so it's the same methodology. The Seasonic X-650 is about 2% higher in energy efficiency than the Cougar GX700 across the board, and tops out at 2.2% higher. The Seasonic has about half of the ripple at max load of the Cougar, and less than half on the critical +12 V rails.
The Cougar GX600 also has very loose voltage regulation on the -12 V rail, as reported by the 80 PLUS organization. Hardly anything uses the -12 V rail anymore, so you could argue that it doesn't matter, but you'd rather not have that flaw than have it.
dude, the only thing this test proves to some extend, is the efficiancy (the certification). The efficiany of a psu is important, but by far not the most important thing. as your own test and page shows, the following holds true:
seasonic psu has got:
OVP/OLP/OPP
thats it.
cougar has:
OVP/OLP/OPP/OCP/UVP/SCP/OTP
come one, i dont want to fight over it, and oh btw, i can post you tests, where the efficiancy of that cougar psu is indeed at 93 %., meaning higher than the seasonic one
I'd guess its the PSU, it may have enough power to turn a few lights on but not nearly enough to get the system running. Its happened to me, the lights on the motherboard was working but it wouldn't start. Replaced PSU and all was well again.
It could however be a dodgy switch (POWER ON). You can start the machine by getting a screw driver and touching the 2 pins on the motherboard, its not dangerous at all so don't worry about that. You'll have to find the pins yourself but the usual look like this. Look closely for the PWR SW on your motherboard and touch those 2 pins. If nothing happens, your ok on the switch.
If you are ok with the switch, it COULD be the motherboard but i'd still have a higher feeling it was the PSU. Without some spare parts around to test it really is difficult to locate the source without taking the risk of just purchasing a new component. If it doesn't turn on at all, it boils down to those 2 things in my opinion.
Did you use ESD protection while you installed the GPU? If not, you could have easily damaged some of your components. Your best bet is to take your PC to a professional to look at. However, it does sound like it is your PSU.
come one, i dont want to fight over it, and oh btw, i can post you tests, where the efficiancy of that cougar psu is indeed at 93 %., meaning higher than the seasonic one
but nvm..
Sure it will get higher energy efficiency--at 230 V and room temperature. But any power supply gets higher efficiency at higher input voltages and lower temperatures, within the reasonable range. You want one that performs well at 120 V and harsher conditions.
Hardware Secrets certainly didn't think it was better, as they only gave it their "silver award", not "golden award".
Don't get me wrong; it's a good power supply. But it's much higher end than is appropriate here, or for most other gaming machines.
Looks like OP PSU couldnt support his new graphics. Changing to a higher wattage psu would solve this. try getting 550W++ just in case for future upgrades.
Looks like OP PSU couldnt support his new graphics. Changing to a higher wattage psu would solve this. try getting 550W++ just in case for future upgrades.
He doesn't need 550 W. 360 W on the +12 V rails would be plenty. The problem is that his old power supply only had half of that, which wasn't enough.
Great thank you all for your replies and Im glad to hear the consensus is based around the PSU. I would hate to have to buy a whole new system, so this weekend I'll upgrade my PSU and see if thats the case. With the light being on inside the computer that gives me hope that the motherboard hasn't shorted out. I'll keep you guys updated and thanks again for the help
CPU-HP Omen 17.3" Laptop i7 12 GB AMD Radeon RX580 1 TB Hard Drive
Looks like OP PSU couldnt support his new graphics. Changing to a higher wattage psu would solve this. try getting 550W++ just in case for future upgrades.
He doesn't need 550 W. 360 W on the +12 V rails would be plenty. The problem is that his old power supply only had half of that, which wasn't enough.
Suggesting 550w since he wanted to do upgrade work later.
I'm going to have to agree with Yaminsux here. The general trend in hardware has only been for it to become more power hungry as time goes on, and as miniaturization gets harder and harder, I think this will only continue to be the trend as the means to increase performance, for the time being, will likely just be more transistor-cramming and will go hand-in-hand with increased power consumption. This is exactly what we see in AMD's latest generation of cards compared to the 5000 series. New fabrication processes are harder to develop as miniaturization gets closer to hitting brick-wall barriers, and so we just see more transistors crammed into chips with the game fabrication.
Given this fact, I think investing a little more in a power supply that's above one's needs is hardly a bad way to future-proof. There's a limit to practicality there, of course (for example I will never use a 1300W PSU over the life of a given PSU, so buying one would be a waste for me), but I don't think it hurts to give oneself a *little* room to breath. A solid 400W PSU might cut it, but unless money is just dead-tight, it's not that much of an added investment to step up to something like a 550W PSU, an added investment that might mean the difference between recycling the PSU for the next system, or spending on a new 550W later ANYWAYS.
That's also added OCing headroom, but I don't know if the OP ultimately will ever care about that.
I guess it depends on whether you're planning on upgrading to more power-hungry parts. While the long term trend has been toward parts that use more power, processors seem to have hit a ceiling of sorts, with neither AMD nor Intel wanting to go over 95 W on most desktop parts, and only rarely going over 130 W on even the highest end parts. Video cards may well be bumping into a ceiling as well, as of the four cards so far with a TDP of around 300 W, exactly zero had a reference card that was cooled properly.
If you want to leave some room for future upgrades, I could understand wanting 500 W or so and a second 6-pin PCI-E power connector. Quite a few cards that take a second 6-pin connector use barely over 150 W and would be fine with a 2x Molex to 6-pin adapter, such as a Radeon HD 5850, Radeon HD 6870, or GeForce GTX 460. But why 550 W in particular? That just seems like a strange number to pick.
Well for me it was just an example of an appropriate wattage. Really, a good 500W PSU would be just fine as well, so I guess I should have said something in the 500-550W range (600 and up is probably getting into overkill territory for most upgrade paths the OP seems like they'd pursue in the immediate future). I just said 550 is a means of agreeing with the user above me (again, with the qualifier "something like" )
Comments
Not sure to be honest, I think I just need to go back to console games lol. This is such a headache ;/
CPU-HP Omen 17.3" Laptop i7 12 GB AMD Radeon RX580 1 TB Hard Drive
Well then, let's have a clean comparison between them. Seasonic sent their X-series power supplies all over for reviews. Cougar was far less aggressive about it, but there was one good site that they sent their GX700 to, which lets us at least get a pretty clean comparison.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Seasonic-X-Series-650-W-Power-Supply-Review/837/7
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Cougar-GX-700-W-Power-Supply-Review/1049/7
Same site, so it's the same methodology. The Seasonic X-650 is about 2% higher in energy efficiency than the Cougar GX700 across the board, and tops out at 2.2% higher. The Seasonic has about half of the ripple at max load of the Cougar, and less than half on the critical +12 V rails.
The Cougar GX600 also has very loose voltage regulation on the -12 V rail, as reported by the 80 PLUS organization. Hardly anything uses the -12 V rail anymore, so you could argue that it doesn't matter, but you'd rather not have that flaw than have it.
dude, the only thing this test proves to some extend, is the efficiancy (the certification). The efficiany of a psu is important, but by far not the most important thing. as your own test and page shows, the following holds true:
seasonic psu has got:
OVP/OLP/OPP
thats it.
cougar has:
OVP/OLP/OPP/OCP/UVP/SCP/OTP
come one, i dont want to fight over it, and oh btw, i can post you tests, where the efficiancy of that cougar psu is indeed at 93 %., meaning higher than the seasonic one
but nvm..
I'd guess its the PSU, it may have enough power to turn a few lights on but not nearly enough to get the system running. Its happened to me, the lights on the motherboard was working but it wouldn't start. Replaced PSU and all was well again.
It could however be a dodgy switch (POWER ON). You can start the machine by getting a screw driver and touching the 2 pins on the motherboard, its not dangerous at all so don't worry about that. You'll have to find the pins yourself but the usual look like this. Look closely for the PWR SW on your motherboard and touch those 2 pins. If nothing happens, your ok on the switch.
If you are ok with the switch, it COULD be the motherboard but i'd still have a higher feeling it was the PSU. Without some spare parts around to test it really is difficult to locate the source without taking the risk of just purchasing a new component. If it doesn't turn on at all, it boils down to those 2 things in my opinion.
Did you use ESD protection while you installed the GPU? If not, you could have easily damaged some of your components. Your best bet is to take your PC to a professional to look at. However, it does sound like it is your PSU.
Sure it will get higher energy efficiency--at 230 V and room temperature. But any power supply gets higher efficiency at higher input voltages and lower temperatures, within the reasonable range. You want one that performs well at 120 V and harsher conditions.
Hardware Secrets certainly didn't think it was better, as they only gave it their "silver award", not "golden award".
Don't get me wrong; it's a good power supply. But it's much higher end than is appropriate here, or for most other gaming machines.
Looks like OP PSU couldnt support his new graphics. Changing to a higher wattage psu would solve this. try getting 550W++ just in case for future upgrades.
He doesn't need 550 W. 360 W on the +12 V rails would be plenty. The problem is that his old power supply only had half of that, which wasn't enough.
Great thank you all for your replies and Im glad to hear the consensus is based around the PSU. I would hate to have to buy a whole new system, so this weekend I'll upgrade my PSU and see if thats the case. With the light being on inside the computer that gives me hope that the motherboard hasn't shorted out. I'll keep you guys updated and thanks again for the help
CPU-HP Omen 17.3" Laptop i7 12 GB AMD Radeon RX580 1 TB Hard Drive
Suggesting 550w since he wanted to do upgrade work later.
I'm going to have to agree with Yaminsux here. The general trend in hardware has only been for it to become more power hungry as time goes on, and as miniaturization gets harder and harder, I think this will only continue to be the trend as the means to increase performance, for the time being, will likely just be more transistor-cramming and will go hand-in-hand with increased power consumption. This is exactly what we see in AMD's latest generation of cards compared to the 5000 series. New fabrication processes are harder to develop as miniaturization gets closer to hitting brick-wall barriers, and so we just see more transistors crammed into chips with the game fabrication.
Given this fact, I think investing a little more in a power supply that's above one's needs is hardly a bad way to future-proof. There's a limit to practicality there, of course (for example I will never use a 1300W PSU over the life of a given PSU, so buying one would be a waste for me), but I don't think it hurts to give oneself a *little* room to breath. A solid 400W PSU might cut it, but unless money is just dead-tight, it's not that much of an added investment to step up to something like a 550W PSU, an added investment that might mean the difference between recycling the PSU for the next system, or spending on a new 550W later ANYWAYS.
That's also added OCing headroom, but I don't know if the OP ultimately will ever care about that.
I guess it depends on whether you're planning on upgrading to more power-hungry parts. While the long term trend has been toward parts that use more power, processors seem to have hit a ceiling of sorts, with neither AMD nor Intel wanting to go over 95 W on most desktop parts, and only rarely going over 130 W on even the highest end parts. Video cards may well be bumping into a ceiling as well, as of the four cards so far with a TDP of around 300 W, exactly zero had a reference card that was cooled properly.
If you want to leave some room for future upgrades, I could understand wanting 500 W or so and a second 6-pin PCI-E power connector. Quite a few cards that take a second 6-pin connector use barely over 150 W and would be fine with a 2x Molex to 6-pin adapter, such as a Radeon HD 5850, Radeon HD 6870, or GeForce GTX 460. But why 550 W in particular? That just seems like a strange number to pick.
There is your problem, its a gateway. Just throw it away and build one, or have somone build you one.
Well for me it was just an example of an appropriate wattage. Really, a good 500W PSU would be just fine as well, so I guess I should have said something in the 500-550W range (600 and up is probably getting into overkill territory for most upgrade paths the OP seems like they'd pursue in the immediate future). I just said 550 is a means of agreeing with the user above me (again, with the qualifier "something like"
)
Get a 600w or so powersupply just to be safe. Hook it up and you should be O K.
----ITS A TRAP!!!----