Corsair CX vs Corsair CXM, and why i think there should come a modular CX

[LukeSavenije]

Introduction

Corsair's CX and CXM units have always been part of the "value" line, falling between the low-end oriented VS (Value Series) and the midrange TXM. VS was created to serve the office-level systems, while TXM was for the mid to high end PC's. For this reason, the CX and CXM were formerly called the "Builder" series.

 

Under CX and CXM, there are a total of 9 different power supply platforms, some with smaller differences, some with larger.

 

CX 2008

To start, CX 2008, the oldest PSU in the line. It only had the CX400 in the line, and is most easily identified by its fully black label side, where future units would contain a green, black, and white, or solely grey color scheme, The unit also used a white label on the back and top (opposite the fan) sides. It was 80+ “White” rated, group regulated, double forward-based, had a ball bearing fan, and was based off the old Seasonic S12II platform (not the one sold today).

 

The CX 2008 is outdated and has been EoL for years now.

 

CX 2011

Then you have CX 2011, which included the CX430, the CX500, and the CX600 in its lineup. This unit is identifiable by the green “CX” text on the label side, with a white line on the right side of the entire label. it was group regulated, double forward, based off the CWT DSAII, didn't meet any 80+ standards, and used a sleeve bearing fan.

 

The CX 2011 is outdated, at best, acceptable for an office system.

 

CX 2012

In 2012, the CX v2 lineup came to the market. I’ll do this one in two parts, since the PSUs used two different platforms. The first platform contains  the CX430v2, CX500v2 and CX600v2 units. These were based off the same CWT DSAII platform that the CX 2011 used, but pushed up to 80+ “White” standards. The CX v2 still used a sleeve bearing fan, group regulation, and a double forward topology, but it can be visually identified by the green line on the rightmost part of its label, which is white on the v1 from 2011.

 

The CX 2012 v2 is outdated, at best, acceptable for an office system, like the CX 2011.

 

CX 2012 750w+

The second unit-platform combination under the CX 2012 line is the CX750. This one uses the CWT PUQ-B platform with double forward DC-DC, meeting 80+ Bronze specifications. While this unit did share a sleeve bearing fan with the other CX v2s, this unit is also very close to the modern CXM (2015,2017) units.

 

The CX750 v2 is acceptable for a budget system.

 

CX 2013

In 2013, Corsair released the last "old" CX, which was based off the CWT DSAIII platform. This set included the CX430, CX500 and CX600. The lower wattage units werepushed up to 80+ Bronze spec and could pull a bit more current compared to the older CX models (28A -> 32A, 34A -> 38A and 40A -> 46A). However, they were still double forward, group regulated, and had a sleeve bearing fan.

 

The CX 2013 is outdated, at best appropriate for an office system.

 

CX 2017

Finally, today we have the modern CX, best known as the "grey label" CX. This is the best CX of all, and includes two platforms for the CX450, CX550, CX650, CX750, for a total of eight possible separate units. . Excepting the CWT CX650, all units technically meet 80+ Silver requirements, but are advertised as 80+ Bronze for unknown reasons. They all are DC-DC, use half-bridge with LLC resonant compared to the older line’s double forward, and are rated at 40C, compared to the older 30C rating. One platform is made by CWT, while the other is made by Great Wall. You can see the difference between the variants for 550W, 650W, and 750W by looking at the last two numbers in the SKU. For CWT, the SKU is RPS005x, and for Great Wall, the SKU is RPS006x.

 

The newest CX variant is good for budget to midrange systems

 

CXM 2013

Now come the CXM or CX modular series. The 2013 CXMs were modular versions of the earlier noted CWT DSAIII based units with the CX430M, CX500M, and CX600M units. So these, too, were group regulated, double forward and used a sleeve bearing fan.

 

The CXM (2013) is outdated, at best appropriate for an office system.

 

CXM 2015

The CX750M and CX850M (2015) are very close to the modern CXM unit. These were just like the CX750, based off the CWT PUQ-B platform. They use DC-DC, double forward, meet 80+ Bronze requirements, and use a rifle bearing fan. They were visually identifiable by the green “CX” and “M” text on the label.

 

The CX750M and CX850M (2015) are acceptable for a budget rig.

 

CXM 2015/2017

The modern CXM is best known by its “gray label” nickname. There were technically two versions, the CXM (2015), and the CXM (2017). The 2015 version included the CX450M, CX550M, CX650M, CX750M, and CX850M. They're all based off the CWT PUQ-B platform, have DC-DC, use double forward, and use a rifle bearing fan.

 

The grey label CXM (2015) is acceptable for a budget rig.

 

Why there should be a modular CX

For now, we'll mainly focus on the CX 2017 and the PUQ-B based units. As noted earlier, the 2012-based CX750 used the same platform as the modern CXM, not the platform the CX (2017) uses. With different topology, this doesn't only have a theoretical advantage in performance, the platform is more linear in efficiency, and more notably, it has a lower chance of creating coil whine, due to the way the double forward topology switches. Most significantly, the creation of additional noise under high load is what drives me to think that we should get a modular version of the CX (2017), called the CXM (2020).. This hypothetical unit can be double sourced, similar to what happened with the CX, but I wouldn't see a problem with either platforms (CWT or Great Wall) being used in the CX.

 

Should PUQ-B be completely gone, then? No, I think it can be a great replacement for the VS series, or a similar platform from other manufacturers. I'd love to one day see a fully Dc-DC lineup from Corsair, which, for example, be quiet! has come close to (they still use group regulation on their 300W and 350W Pure Power 11).

 

Sources/Credit: Aegis, Jonnyguru's CX(M) cheat sheet

Edited January 9, 2020 by LukeSavenije
re-added pictures due to it being broken

[Bombastinator]

The way I understand it is there is “CXM[number]” which is fully modular, “CX[number]” which is not modular, and “CX [number]M” which is semi modular.  The implication of the naming is that the converter itself is identical though this appears that it may not actually be true.  If so This may in fact be misleading and mildly obnoxious.  

[Vejnemojnen]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

The way I understand it is there is “CXM[number]” which is fully modular, “CX[number]” which is not modular, and “CX [number]M” which is semi modular.  The implication of the naming is that the converter itself is identical though this appears that it may not actually be true.  If so This may in fact be misleading and mildly obnoxious.  

CX___M series are semi-modular. There are no PSU-s in the CX lineup, which are fully modular.  

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

The way I understand it is there is “CXM[number]”

that's a mistake... that's not a thing in the first place

 

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

“CX[number]” which is not modular, and “CX [number]M” which is semi modular.

this part is right

 

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The implication of the naming is that the converter itself is identical though this appears that it may not actually be true.

indeed, and this is the point i want to make here, well seen

[Bombastinator]

36 minutes ago, Vejnemojnen said:

CX___M series are semi-modular. There are no PSU-s in the CX lineup, which are fully modular.  

Argh. So the names only mostly follow a parameter.  Ugh.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

The way I understand it is there is “CXM[number]” which is fully modular, “CX[number]” which is not modular, and “CX [number]M” which is semi modular.  The implication of the naming is that the converter itself is identical though this appears that it may not actually be true.  If so This may in fact be misleading and mildly obnoxious.  

Nope.  Not sure where you got that from.  But that's completely wrong.

 

[Guest]

Unfortunately...

 

LLC is expensive.

 

Modularity is expensive.

 

The dip-shits that stock the components in your local store refuse to pay for LLC >>and<< modularity.  

 

So whenever a CX-M with LLC is proposed, it's shot down with "nope... too expensive!"

 

Sooo.....

 

[LukeSavenije]

1 minute ago, jonnyGURU said:

Sooo.....

you're going to force me to the txm, got it

Spoiler

take with a light amount of sarcasm

 

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, jonnyGURU said:

Nope.  Not sure where you got that from.  But that's completely wrong.

 

From reading the OP’s post.  If it’s wrong it’s wrong though.  It would kinda make sense. 

[Bombastinator]

So if that scheme is not how it works then “M” is not for “modular” at all.  Or only sometimes, or something.  CX is basic grade. I think I got that far anyway.  CXM is up from that.  Not sure where CX[number]M goes then.  Between them?

[seon123]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

So if that scheme is not how it works then “M” is not for “modular” at all.  Or only sometimes, or something.  CX is basic grade. I think I got that far anyway.  CXM is up from that.  Not sure where CX[number]M goes then.  Between them?

The current PSUs that have an "M" suffix seem to be the semi modular ones. CXM, TXM and Vengeance M (as well as the CSM from a while back). The fully modular ones do either not have a suffix (e.g. RM, AX), or a different suffix (e.g. RMx, AXi).

The VS is basic, the CX is the lowest end decent PSU, imo. The CX and CXM should in theory be roughly on par with each other, but currently it's a tradeoff between semi modularity and an overall better PSU.

I abbreviate Corsair's lineup with the Prefix and suffix, without the wattage number. E.g. RM650x is the 650W variant of the RMx lineup. That's how it's commonly done, afaik.