Is the Seasonic S12II Bronze 520w enough for my build?

[WhiteBoard2005]

I did read the pinned topic beforehand. the Top tier Gaming pc with an unlocked i7 and a 1080 would only need a good 550w PSU.

The build is nowhere near close to the "Top tier" mark.
Here's the build:

CPU: i5-7500
RAM: 8GB DDR4 Kingston
GPU: RX 5700XT (The product page recommends 600w)
Storage: 1TB segate
I read the fans dont take much energy anyway.
I don't plan on overclocking anything. Would the PSU be enough.

It has all the circuit protection stuff (OVP, OPP and short circuit protection)
Just wanna make sure, thanks!

[Fasauceome]

check this out:

 

[GoldenLag]

Cx 550 is a good enough PSU.

 

Not to be confused with the CXM.

 

Two very different PSUs. Avoid the CXM.

[WhiteBoard2005]

15 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

check this out:

 

Oh crap it's a tier D. Im what way would that affect my experience? It might take me a couple of weeks to get a better one.

Edited July 9, 2019 by HercUlysses
Added my reason

[Fasauceome]

5 minutes ago, HercUlysses said:

Oh crap it's a tier D. Im what way would that affect my experience? It might take me a couple of weeks to get a better one.

The 5700 XT is rather demanding, I never put high end hardware on a low end PSU if I care about it. If you've got $70 to spare, a tier A PSU is right for you.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/J7F48d/cooler-master-mwe-gold-650-w-80-gold-certified-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-mpy-6501-afaag-us

 

Otherwise, the good ol Corsair CX or CXM does the job.

[Fasauceome]

12 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Avoid the CXM

Wait since when? JonnyGuru said it's not as good as the CX but he didn't say it was crap or anything (not that he would, given his involvement with Corsair, but still)

[WhiteBoard2005]

2 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

The 5700 XT is rather demanding, I never put high end hardware on a low end PSU if I care about it. If you've got $70 to spare, a tier A PSU is right for you.

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/J7F48d/cooler-master-mwe-gold-650-w-80-gold-certified-fully-modular-atx-power-supply-mpy-6501-afaag-us

 

Otherwise, the good ol Corsair CX or CXM does the job.

Thanks! I'll get the CX I think.

[GoldenLag]

9 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

Wait since when? JonnyGuru said it's not as good as the CX but he didn't say it was crap or anything (not that he would, given his involvement with Corsair, but still)

Its got the same "issues" as the VS.

 

VS is fine in terms of usage. It just isnt very efficient, etc. 

[OrionFOTL]

3 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

Its got the same "issues" as the VS.

What issues in particular?

[GoldenLag]

34 minutes ago, OrionFOTL said:

What issues in particular?

I believe its a doubleforward design which isnt great. 

 

Also is less efficient and in general louder than its CX counterpart which is a very much different PSU

 

 

Thats what i can remember. 

 

The VS series is avoided for the same reasons. 

[OrionFOTL]

The VS series is avoided because it's group regulated, which directly affects voltage regulation and load regulation on modern 12V-heavy PCs. That's the main reason and why people should pick DC-DC or dual magamp PSUs. Both CX-M and CX use DC-DC converters.

 

Double forward primary topology isn't a big minus or a reason to avoid, it only increases the chance for coil whine on high end graphics cards.

 

It isn't less efficient than CX. On Cybenetics, the CX450M has an ETA-A- rating, while CX450 by Great Wall has ETA-A- too, and CX450 by CWT has ETA-S (less efficient). The tested CX550 and CX550M also have the same ETA certificate.

 

It's not louder in general than CX - on Cybenetics, CX450M is *quieter* than CX450 Great Wall and CX450 CWT. Where do you get this stuff from?

CX550M is louder than CX550 in Cybenetics testing, however.

 

 

So, while CX is still better than CXM due to an LLC resonant converter used in the primary topology, there's no reason to avoid CXM. VS is avoided because it's group regulated, has low end performance, worse transient response, is rated at only 30 degrees C, and has low efficiency (80+ Standard) - none of these things apply to CXM or CX.