Sunday, August 15th 2021
PSU Expert Aris Mpitziopoulos Responds to Gigabyte Statement on GP-P750/850 GM Design Flaws
Cybenetics certification program's chief engineer, a renowned expert with switching power supplies, and TechPowerUp contributor, Dr Aris Mpitziopoulos, released detailed commentary on the recent statement released by GIGABYTE on the GP-P750/850 GM series PSU design flaw reportage in the press. The earliest of this was broken on TechPowerUp, with our December 2020 review of the GP-P750GM, which led with the headline "With an Explosive Attitude."
Mpitziopoulos dives into the technical details of the design flaw being not just a badly programmed Over-Power Protection (OPP) safety mechanism, but a flawed hardware design overall. Since he reviewed PSUs from this series for TechPowerUp and Hardware Busters, he shares his perspective on how the reviews went, more importantly, the back-and-forth with GIGABYTE when the flaws were discovered.
The following is a statement by Aris Mpitziopoulos:
I didn't want to bother with this matter again initially, but something was troubling me. It can't be right, Gigabyte blaming us reviewers, or users, for abusing its power supplies and not its engineer. So after some thought, I decided to reply to their statement issued on 13th August 2021 about the GP-P750/850 GM PSUs. Below you will find Gigabyte's allegations, as they are written in its statement and my responses.
GIGABYTE: takes reports of this manner extremely seriously and therefore would like to address the reported potential issues as follows…
Aris response: I reported the issues I faced with the GP-P750GM power supply in late October 2020, before I post its review on TechPowerUp and the video review on the Hardware Busters YT channel, and GIGABYTE responded that its engineers tested five units and found no problems. They didn't ask for my bad sample back for failure analysis, which is the typical procedure, and they didn't offer a second sample to continue the review. I have kept all of my correspondence with GIGABYTE's respective team, in case there is any doubt.
GIGABYTE: The OPP safety feature is designed to shut down the unit when the power load exceeds the wattage the unit was designed to operate within. The OPP was set to 120% to 150%, 1020 W~1300 W for GP-P850GM, and 900 W~1125 W for the GP-P750GM.
Aris response: OPP is to protect the PSU from failures. That said, GIGABYTE's engineers should have configured it accordingly. Some platforms with top-notch and tolerant to stress components can have higher OPP settings than other lower-end platforms. It is up to the manufacturer to correctly set OPP to effectively protect the power supply under all conditions and the system that the PSU feeds with power. Lastly, OPP with a 30% range is too high. GIGABYTE should ask for a lower range.
GIGABYTE: We were made aware by third parties of concerns regarding potential issues of the GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM tripping at high wattages when tested via DC Electronic Load equipment for extended lengths of time repeatedly close to the 120% to 150% OPP trigger point. This level of extended testing could severely reduce the lifespan of the product and components of the GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM.
Aris response: First of all, there was no prolonged testing period under overloads since most samples died within a few minutes of testing as Steve (Gamer Nexus) mentions in his video. In my case, the GP-P750 GM sample that I tested shut down during a short period of OPP evaluation and exploded once I tried to start it again to continue testing, with no load on its rails. Even if extended testing at high loads was the case, the engineers should use lower OPP triggering points from the moment they are well aware that the platform can handle higher than normal loads. Finally, reducing the lifespan is an entirely different story from exploding parts, which clearly shows a problem with the OPP setting, which GIGABYTE believes is the culprit.
GIGABYTE: GIGABYTE has made adjustments and lowered the OPP on GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM…. from 120% ~ 150% to 110% ~ 120%
Aris response: GIGABYTE noticed, after our findings, that the platforms cannot withstand a 120%-150% OPP rating and decided to lower it. The problem is that 110%-120% OPP is impossible with analog controllers, which use resistors to adjust OPP. These resistors drift with temperature. In other words, their resistance changes according to the operating conditions, so it is impossible to achieve such a small OPP range under both cold and hot conditions. The only way to achieve a tightly set OPP is through digital circuits, an MCU. Finally, GIGABYTE doesn't mention the operating conditions under which the new OPP settings apply.
GIGABYTE: GIGABYTE would like to stress the potential issues that were reported, only seemed to occur after very long time periods of extreme load testing via DC Electronic load equipment and would not be typical of any real world usage.
Aris response: Gamer Nexus' samples died in a matter of minutes, and my sample died after a short period of OPP evaluation. Moreover, a quick look at the user reports (Newegg, forums, etc.) shows that most of these PSUs died under normal conditions. With so many failures reported on Newegg reviews, it cannot just be a coincidence.
GIGABYTE: GIGABYTE GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM PSU's included industry standard power protection designs OCP, OTP, OVP, OPP, UVP, and SCP.
Safety certification from various countries to ensure safe and stable operation of your system.
Aris response: From the moment these units have a CE certification, I would love to check the corresponding CE reports including protection features evaluation. To the best of my knowledge, no safety certification evaluates the PSU's protection features.
GIGABYTE: Despite the fact that both before & after OPP adjustment versions are reliable for real world usage
Aris response: Many users that bought these products have a different opinion and experience. Also, OPP is not there for us reviewers only, but it should protect the PSU under all conditions. Otherwise, there is no point in having this protection feature when it doesn't save the PSU. And also, who and what defines real-world usage? For me, typical use can be having my PC idle most of the time while other users play games most of the time, stressing the entire system. Other users can run tests with Furmark and Prime95 at the same time. My point is, real-world usage varies from user to user.
GIGABYTE: Serial Number below can apply for Return and Exchange service
Aris response: GIGABYTE had made OPP changes to some production batches but didn't inform the people that bought units with high OPP about this or even give them the chance to replace their units, just to be on the safe side. They applied a silent fix, and this means that they were troubled enough to do it.
Conclusion: This is not just a badly set OPP since many units died under moderate loads and within short periods. I strongly believe that this is just a bad design, the FETs are not driven correctly, and although in quick pre-checks and normal conditions, the PSU can be ok, there are cases (not only under stress) where they fail. The timing of the FETs is not correct, and this is due to a lousy gate driver or a lousy implementation. Of course, I cannot be dead sure without any samples, older and newer generations, in my hands to test and break apart for failure analysis.
This article explains the problem I described above in detail.
Mpitziopoulos dives into the technical details of the design flaw being not just a badly programmed Over-Power Protection (OPP) safety mechanism, but a flawed hardware design overall. Since he reviewed PSUs from this series for TechPowerUp and Hardware Busters, he shares his perspective on how the reviews went, more importantly, the back-and-forth with GIGABYTE when the flaws were discovered.
I didn't want to bother with this matter again initially, but something was troubling me. It can't be right, Gigabyte blaming us reviewers, or users, for abusing its power supplies and not its engineer. So after some thought, I decided to reply to their statement issued on 13th August 2021 about the GP-P750/850 GM PSUs. Below you will find Gigabyte's allegations, as they are written in its statement and my responses.
GIGABYTE: takes reports of this manner extremely seriously and therefore would like to address the reported potential issues as follows…
Aris response: I reported the issues I faced with the GP-P750GM power supply in late October 2020, before I post its review on TechPowerUp and the video review on the Hardware Busters YT channel, and GIGABYTE responded that its engineers tested five units and found no problems. They didn't ask for my bad sample back for failure analysis, which is the typical procedure, and they didn't offer a second sample to continue the review. I have kept all of my correspondence with GIGABYTE's respective team, in case there is any doubt.
GIGABYTE: The OPP safety feature is designed to shut down the unit when the power load exceeds the wattage the unit was designed to operate within. The OPP was set to 120% to 150%, 1020 W~1300 W for GP-P850GM, and 900 W~1125 W for the GP-P750GM.
Aris response: OPP is to protect the PSU from failures. That said, GIGABYTE's engineers should have configured it accordingly. Some platforms with top-notch and tolerant to stress components can have higher OPP settings than other lower-end platforms. It is up to the manufacturer to correctly set OPP to effectively protect the power supply under all conditions and the system that the PSU feeds with power. Lastly, OPP with a 30% range is too high. GIGABYTE should ask for a lower range.
GIGABYTE: We were made aware by third parties of concerns regarding potential issues of the GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM tripping at high wattages when tested via DC Electronic Load equipment for extended lengths of time repeatedly close to the 120% to 150% OPP trigger point. This level of extended testing could severely reduce the lifespan of the product and components of the GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM.
Aris response: First of all, there was no prolonged testing period under overloads since most samples died within a few minutes of testing as Steve (Gamer Nexus) mentions in his video. In my case, the GP-P750 GM sample that I tested shut down during a short period of OPP evaluation and exploded once I tried to start it again to continue testing, with no load on its rails. Even if extended testing at high loads was the case, the engineers should use lower OPP triggering points from the moment they are well aware that the platform can handle higher than normal loads. Finally, reducing the lifespan is an entirely different story from exploding parts, which clearly shows a problem with the OPP setting, which GIGABYTE believes is the culprit.
GIGABYTE: GIGABYTE has made adjustments and lowered the OPP on GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM…. from 120% ~ 150% to 110% ~ 120%
Aris response: GIGABYTE noticed, after our findings, that the platforms cannot withstand a 120%-150% OPP rating and decided to lower it. The problem is that 110%-120% OPP is impossible with analog controllers, which use resistors to adjust OPP. These resistors drift with temperature. In other words, their resistance changes according to the operating conditions, so it is impossible to achieve such a small OPP range under both cold and hot conditions. The only way to achieve a tightly set OPP is through digital circuits, an MCU. Finally, GIGABYTE doesn't mention the operating conditions under which the new OPP settings apply.
GIGABYTE: GIGABYTE would like to stress the potential issues that were reported, only seemed to occur after very long time periods of extreme load testing via DC Electronic load equipment and would not be typical of any real world usage.
Aris response: Gamer Nexus' samples died in a matter of minutes, and my sample died after a short period of OPP evaluation. Moreover, a quick look at the user reports (Newegg, forums, etc.) shows that most of these PSUs died under normal conditions. With so many failures reported on Newegg reviews, it cannot just be a coincidence.
GIGABYTE: GIGABYTE GP-P850GM and GP-P750GM PSU's included industry standard power protection designs OCP, OTP, OVP, OPP, UVP, and SCP.
Safety certification from various countries to ensure safe and stable operation of your system.
Aris response: From the moment these units have a CE certification, I would love to check the corresponding CE reports including protection features evaluation. To the best of my knowledge, no safety certification evaluates the PSU's protection features.
GIGABYTE: Despite the fact that both before & after OPP adjustment versions are reliable for real world usage
Aris response: Many users that bought these products have a different opinion and experience. Also, OPP is not there for us reviewers only, but it should protect the PSU under all conditions. Otherwise, there is no point in having this protection feature when it doesn't save the PSU. And also, who and what defines real-world usage? For me, typical use can be having my PC idle most of the time while other users play games most of the time, stressing the entire system. Other users can run tests with Furmark and Prime95 at the same time. My point is, real-world usage varies from user to user.
GIGABYTE: Serial Number below can apply for Return and Exchange service
Aris response: GIGABYTE had made OPP changes to some production batches but didn't inform the people that bought units with high OPP about this or even give them the chance to replace their units, just to be on the safe side. They applied a silent fix, and this means that they were troubled enough to do it.
Conclusion: This is not just a badly set OPP since many units died under moderate loads and within short periods. I strongly believe that this is just a bad design, the FETs are not driven correctly, and although in quick pre-checks and normal conditions, the PSU can be ok, there are cases (not only under stress) where they fail. The timing of the FETs is not correct, and this is due to a lousy gate driver or a lousy implementation. Of course, I cannot be dead sure without any samples, older and newer generations, in my hands to test and break apart for failure analysis.
This article explains the problem I described above in detail.
56 Comments on PSU Expert Aris Mpitziopoulos Responds to Gigabyte Statement on GP-P750/850 GM Design Flaws
"Can it handle some interference itself?" is a question of function albeit under what conditions. "Does it spew out enough interference to affect other devices?" well, if it does then it would be a functional device? because you certainly wouldn't be able to use then.
pro tip pal; certifications and their process are generally more concerned that the product functions as required then safety as you think. so as usual "common knowledge" is "common myth".
However, if Nvidia's MDF is being used, these companies are in a very grey area and might be reprimanded not only by Nvidia, but also by law enforcement, as this would be inappropriate use of marketing funds. Maybe things are different in the US, but this would be outright illegal in most countries.
ya outta nudge those kids at gamers nexus to pick up that torch. :D
Even the smart plug we developed at Securifi had UL and FCC certification.Yeah, no, it's anything but normal. That said, it used to be a lot more common back in the days. Back in 2005 when I did a large PSU group test, I had a couple of Hiper units fail. One damaged the test equipment and one with passive PFC started to vibrate around the test bench at around 75% load...
Also had one Ultra PSU blow up at a mer 100% load and a fanless PSU from Silentmaxx also had a component failure and died.
I don't think either of these companies are around today though.
The allocation stuff going on with GPUs right now is really acute, and AiB partners are going absolutely berserk. Because that's the thing. If you want allocation or better pricing on graphics cards, you have to play ball with them and I imagine they're straight up setting the terms for a lot of vendors.
I've seen what's been going on behind the curtain, it's very ugly.
Gigabyte - NEVER again. This seals the deal. After the RMA bullshit reports and multiple screw ups that are actually 'the norm' according to some, this one takes the cake.Gigabyte Z77X D3H mobo: two dead RAM slots.
Gigabyte NV 780ti: the single worst GPU I've owned. Hot, could not maintain rated clock, zero OC potential, noisy af
Gigabyte G34WQC monitor: has developed a bright spot within 3 months of purchase at one screen edge, and momentarily blanks out and goes back on when the room is colder, or the monitor feels like it. I can't decide which yet, but this one's going for RMA :D
three strikes and you're out tbh. I guess I'm lucky having never used a PSU with their logo on it.
That was my first and last Jiggabyte PSU.
I kind of like their motherboards though, but now my graphics card has started to spin up the fans like crazy a bit at random, which is really annoying. It didn't behave like this until recently. Finger crossed it won't go on the fritz.
I actually had a Gigabyte router at one point, it was a pretty average router that lacked any kind of firmware support. Can't think of anything else I've owned from them, despite having had quite a good relationship with the company when I was a tech journalist.
People love outrage, and that generates clicks to pay the bills.Basically PSU royalty right there...
@crmaris - what does the crm stand for? I hadn't made the association before, but is the c for Cybenetics?
About the Gigabyte-statement , i already wrote my opinion at HardwareBusters channel :
It's a pathetic excuse from Gigabyte to imply that those units were excessively pushed by the reviewers.
Well , excuse me Gigabyte-PR team , but it's an IRRELEVANT argument if those PSUs were excessively pushed or not. IF they had the proper protection features , like most good-quality PSUs , it wouldn't matter how hard were they pushed or not , since those protection features would kick-in and shut-down the PSU.
The fact that this didn't happen(we all watched the explosion/fire) means that Gigabyte's PSUs are PSUs without the proper protection features ,and this by itself is unforgivable.
EDIT : oh , and almost forgot :
It's even worse than their current press-release , the fact that they never asked Aris to send the damaged PSU back to Gigabyte so they could further examine what happened. They only replied that they didn't experience such issues at their own testings ,and basically ignored Aris findings.
This behaviour was similarly bad with their current press-release.
EDIT: Some countries actually do REQUIRE a proper EMI/RFI testing similar to FCC requirements (Korea and Australia, for example. Can't get KCC and C-Tick without). But otherwise, FCC is only required in the U.S. So when you see these garbage PSUs in Europe with "FCC" on the label, odds are it didn't actually get any proper FCC testing. Especially if CE and FCC are the only logos on the label.
And as @lexluthermiester pointed out: UL, cTÜVus, etc. are completely optional.Definitely not illegal. At least not in the U.S. Nobody forces you to sell to anyone. Surprised it's illegal anywhere. Think about it: If you're have graphics cards and someone wants to buy them, you don't have the right to say "no. I don't want to sell them to you"? Because it's essentially the same thing. There are laws that prevent price floors, price ceilings, price gouging, but that's not what's happening here. They're selling the cards to Newegg for the exact same price they're selling them to Amazon and would sell them to anyone else if they DID NOT have PSUs as well. It's not like they're saying "Price of GPU is (GPU + Price of PSU)" They're saying: "Price of GPU is this. Price of PSU is this. Gotta buy both. Take it or leave it."
Like a car dealer. SUV has a moon roof. I don't want a moon roof, but they don't have one without a moon roof and don't want to take the cost of the moon roof out of the total price of the vehicle. Essentially saying, "we're not willing to close this sale". Car = GPU. Moon roof = PSU. Car dealer is Gigabyte. I'm Newegg. I have a CHOICE at this point to say fine, I'm going to the other dealer (Zotac or Galax, for example).This is exactly the problem.
It's not uncommon for an OEM to second or third source a component in short supply without even letting the customer know. They do this based on "looks good on paper" instead of doing proper validation testing. I've had parts as small as a resistor getting swapped out unbeknownst to me fuck me over and have my boss threaten to terminate me because the OEM said "it's the same on paper". Never again.
Fortunately, Corsair... and Corsair's not the only one. beQuiet, Coolermaster, Thermaltake, etc. all have good teams. I'm not just tooting my own horn here... have "Product Engineering" (this is different than the R&D engineering I'm involved with) teams in China that oversee production and FORCE, literally FORCE, the OEM to do proper validations testing before making a change.
Right now, however, is the WORSE TIME for companies like Corsair, Coolermaster, etc. because there are component shortages left and right... everything from capacitors to MOSFETs to MCUs.... and travel restrictions that prevent you from having boots on the ground. So EVERYTHING is taking longer and for some companies, corners are being cut. Usually without the company even knowing about it until it's too late.
By the way... Good read here: www.amazon.com/Poorly-Made-China-Insiders-Production/dp/0470928077
Like how maker of AMRAAM's rocket motor changed propellant formula and didn't test that it still works in high altitude flight temperatures.
When USAF caught that in their testing, that "insignificant" change ended up causing over two year stop in missile deliveries threatening whole missile program.
And of course instead of admitting screw up and accepting consequencies, that company eventually sued missile's maker Raytheon basically for switching to another source.
(who started making actually working rocket motors)
Maybe it might have helped in keeping the contract, if they had actually started to instantly fix the problem instead of blaming others...
But that China production is really something.
Once in stormchaser meeting one hobbyer had work in electronics company.
They had product design, which needed dual sided PCB, but Chinese factory supposed to make them wanted to change it single sided to cut costs...:banghead:
What bothers me most though is gigabytes response (or lack thereof). It's really, really lackluster. That is a reason to avoid them more than anything else. It indicates a refusal to learn from mistakes.
Also, no-one seems to learn from mistakes here, since in most companies, the staff turnover is too high, so there's no "collective memory" of what happened more than a year or two ago. In most cases, if you want a promotion, you quit your job and go to a competitor and ask for a higher salary. However, the competitor isn't really interested in the mistakes the other company made and barely interested in what made them successful so...
Much like governments (apart from the multinational part), once they stop serving, they're hostile entities, because they have then shifted to you serving them. Staying to see if they might change is like waiting until Putin marries Navalny. Along those lines, only revolution or a great exodus can change the course for the better.
And its a damn shame but quite a few multinationals are headed that way. Power corrupts.
Also, I could not comprehend the intention behind setting a higher OPP - you already told your customer your units aren't supposed to handle more than the specified, why bother leaving the headroom in exchange for an unnecessary risk? People will know they need a higher current unit when they are shut down by the OPP/OCP and you get to sell a more expensive PSU, like why not?
If the OPP was activated the PSU would had been shut-down and not explode.
So , either this PSU doesn't (have) implement properly its supposed protection features (on the contrary to what Gigabyte say at their statement) , or , just like Aris suspects , the issue could be related with the PSU 's design as a platform...