I feel TPU is putting too little emphasis (or none at all!
) on Hold-Up Time performance in your PSU reviews. The review clearly states this is a "
very important PSU characteristic" yet when this Super Flower "Platinum" PSU
fails in this
"very important" area, and IMO, fails miserably (13.5ms is almost 16% off from the required "minimum" 16ms) this failure is almost entirely overlooked in the conclusion - barely a mention in the Thumbs-down section - not as a "Failure", but just "Lower than 16ms".
I note the Conclusion commentary does not even mention this "failure" but goes on to say,
This PSU's only major downside is its fan's noise output as it spins at high speeds at even light loads.
How can a characteristic be "
very important" then not be considered a major (or even minor) downside when a PSU fails at this test???
How can a noisy fan be, not just a but
the only "
major" downside when the PSU cannot even pass this "
very important" test?
How can this "
very important" failure not significantly impact the score?
And let's face it, the ATX Form Factor standards call for
very conservative minimums (see my "by comparison" comment on Ripple below).
I note for many users researching PSUs, their data is worth much more than the hardware. And having full time access to the data is even more important, if not "mission critical". And while maybe rare,
corrupt hard drives and
lost data as a result of a sudden loss of power is not unheard of.
Power "dips" and "sags" (opposite of spikes and surges) are just as common as spikes and surges. Sadly, not everyone uses a "good" UPS with AVR to compensate (in a timely fashion) for these power anomalies. 2.5ms can mean the difference between uninterrupted data access and mission downtime while the system reboots. Or worse, excessive
mission downtime and
lost business while HD corruption is repaired and data backups are restored.
By letting Enermax, Rosewill, Antec, Super Flower, EVGA and other "failures" slide, you are sending them the message that this "
very important PSU characteristic" is not "
very important" after all. And so they have no incentive to do anything about it.
I say use the power TPU affords you and hold these PSU maker's feet to fires and make them accountable for FAILING to even meet ATX standards. Force them to at least meet ATX's
very conservative minimums if they want a good review.
By comparison, I would like to see Hold-up Time treated with the same vigor and regard (or pretty close to it) as the critically important Ripple criteria. I note it is not uncommon to see criticism, or at least expressed disappointment for "mediocre" ripple values even when they are still well within the
very conservative 120mV p-p and 50mV p-p ATX standards!
If Hold-up Time is a "
very important PSU characteristic" as you claim it is, and IMO, it certainly is, then treat is as such in your scoring and conclusion commentaries so the PSU makers will do something about it! You have the power, I say use it!
Thanks for listening.