In Win GreenMe 650W
by Martin Kaffei on June 6, 2012 5:10 AM EST- Posted in
- Cases/Cooling/PSUs
- PSUs
- In-Win
- 650W
- GreenME
Conclusion
The In Win GreenMe 650W is a power supply which is not as green as it could be. For sure the environmental friendly packaging is a welcome change, but we should keep in mind that we can't protect the environment by buying a new PSU. If you're really looking to help the environment, it's better to keep your current PSU as long as possible and avoid contributing to landfills. In addition some of those extras in the package won't help to make the product much greener. Customers don't need a coloured user manual or various cable ties in a plastic bag, and these days even 80 Plus Bronze is often not enough to satisfy "green" customers.
Another point of criticism is the cable configuration. In Win provides not more than three HDD and six SATA plugs. Moreoever two connectors for graphics cards are not as much as we would like to see. As if this were not deficient enough, the GreenMe products have short cables (such as the one with 24 pins at 45cm). Even so all peripheral harnesses reach 80cm length or more and the cable sleeving is upscale.
From a purely technical viewpoint In Win didn't do anything wrong. The extensive EMI filtering including a MOV is just one out of many welcome features. Furthermore, the case has a good shielding. The PSU provides active PFC, all the important safety functions, and not least DC-to-DC VRM with all solid capacitors. All other parts have components from reliable sources except the caps. In Win has chosen capacitors from Samxon for the output filtering. We would like to see a better solution here. The GreenMe doesn't need active rectifying with modern transistors to reach 80 Plus Bronze. They still use Schottky diodes.
Currently we can't rate the market price. Let us assume, that the price will be about $80-90. For midrange systems (that won't be heavily overclocked or run two high-end GPUs with two connectors each) the GreenMe 650W is a good offer. However, the cable lengths are not suitable for larger cases, there are not enough connectors for the target market and some caps on the secondary side are very cheap. Build quality, voltage regulation, and efficiency are very good anyway.
The efficiency is relatively high with 87% at 115VAC and even better 88% with 230VAC. Considering the good efficiency, the fan could be quieter, particularly at high loads. 32 dBA is too high for a silent product when other manufacturers are able to stay under 30dBA with low temperatures. The ripple and noise results with more than 70mV on +12V are relatively high but still within ATX specifications.
The In Win GreenMe 650 may not be the greatest in all areas, but it does have some advantages such as the voltage regulation, even with all the opponents it has to face. However, Antec's EarthWatts EA-650 Green 650W shows a great performance as well and the current price is low. Only the missing power cord is too much of a good thing. The Corsair Enthusiast Series TX650 V2 650W is another strong competitor, but the price is somewhat higher ($89.99 after rebate; $119.99 otherwise). The design is almost the same as well, since they use a two-transistor forward converter and DC-to-DC modules for the smaller outputs. In summary, it can be stated that In Win is not able to deliver the "greenest" product ever, but an average offer. In terms of quality the GreenMe series is a common product like most power supplies are.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
CharonPDX - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
That seems odd. Shouldn't a PSU marketed as being "eco" "green", etc, have better than the lowest certification.cyberguyz - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
You are echoing my thoughts exactly bro.To me a 'green' PSU should waste as little power as possible. Simply because they donate to an eco group (exactly how much of each dollar donated actually goes toward whatever it is that WWF actually does? How much ends up lining pockets?) does not buy them a 'green' monicker.
These guys are just using this as a gimmick to foist off low-quality goods on an unsuspecting market.
dtolios - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
The fact that global warming is used and abused by companies / orgs, does not make it irrelevant - being man made or not. Not all of the people taking action about reducing our "Carbon footprint" think immorally or try to boost an agenda.Just like the US or any other country fighting immoral wars for pure profit since and during WWII doesn't make the warriors fighting and dying for them immoral - not the vast majority of them at least.
So let the "green" fighters do what they do, along with the "freedom fighters", the "holy crusaders" etc...Green is a new religion. Accept it, or get ready to be questioned about your "believes" and morality.
Btw, funding WWF does not make a passable modern PSU much greener...meh marketing.
TomatoTornado - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
... but I beg of you, educate yourself about the WWF. It is nothing more than a marketing label." WWF certified a palm oil plantation operated by Wilmar International, a Singaporean company, on the Indonesian island of Borneo, even though the establishment of the plantation led to the destruction of over 14,000 hectares of rainforest. Only 80 hectares were ultimately conserved."
ggathagan - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link
I don't disagree with you, but your point is made more strongly if you supply a reference for your quote.taltamir - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
"They got donations from the energy industry and tolerated genetically changed soy. "What is wrong with them receiving donations from energy industry?
What is wrong with genetically modified soy? Would you rather people starve to death then use genetically modified crops that cause less pollution and produce greater yields?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link
It's not a question of whether or not we think that; it's that plenty of others have concerns with the WWF, so pointing out that they're not without controversy on a PSU that sticks a "we give $1 to WWF for every PSU sold" seems rather appropriate. And of course, there are others that dispute the accusations that they've done anything "wrong". So, choose your poison, but ultimately the PSU is just "okay" and that's probably where things ought to end.Lqdslvrz - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link
"What is wrong with genetically modified soy? Would you rather people starve to death then use genetically modified crops that cause less pollution and produce greater yields?"So much wrong here, so much.
If you think genetically modified food is anything beneficial you had better do some research.
cyberguyz - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link
Man, what do you say to something so asinine. (shakes head)Perhaps you should hit the books as well. Do you even understand all of what "genetic modification" means? You do realize that half 90% of the food you eat every day is genetically modified right? The wheat in your bread or flour. The meat you eat.
(Hint: cross-breeding and cross pollination are simple 'genetic modifications' and have been taking place for decades)
You assume this kind of thing is wrong. Perhaps instead of throwing the darts, you should put your own mind up on the dartboard and list out exactly why there is "so much wrong here". How about some of the reasons why crops are genetically manipulated:
1. Produce hardier strains that can grow with little water.
2. Produce strains that produce more food per plant (i.e. corn that will grow more than a couple ears per plant)
3. Produce plants that do not attract to insects (reduces pesticide use).
4. produce strains that yield larger fruit/vegetables.
Why is this beneficial? How about:
(1) Crops can grow in places normally suffering from frequent droughts which would kill 'normal' crops.
(2) For a given field, a higher yield is obtained. This can feed more people than 'normal' crops.
(3) I for one would rather eat food that has not been coated in toxins. With 'normal' crops you are forced to use pesticides to get a decent yield.
(4) No brainer here. Larger potatoes mean you need less of them to feed a family.
There are over 6 billion people in the world. Unmodified crops can not feed them all. When you see those 'staving kids in Africa' commercials, you are seeing only the end result of the use of that money provided. Sure some of the money goes to tactical support, but the largest part of the money donated goes to research into producing food in areas like that so those kids would not be starving in the first place.
So, what would you prefer? Genetically altered crops that can grow in places where drought or insect infestations is common or hundreds of thousands of starving people? Or producing vegetable strains that can grow with 1/5th water and not be eaten by insects without using pesticides?
I know what I would choose.
taltamir - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link
well said.