Ultra X3 1000W @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,719
Ultra X3 1000W - A FlexForce modular power supply with a black chrome finish that boasts to deliver 1000 watts of power to your personal computer. It states it does this while being Energy Efficient, up to 85% efficiency, and carries a CrossFire Certified rating.

Couple the physical and performance metrics we have seen today with Ultra's Lifetime warranty (after registration,) and the $289.99 price tag, and we are left with a power supply that truly is a good deal in comparison to the other 1000W units currently on the market.
Click to expand...
 
I was just curious but if a power supply company says that their PSU is 'certified for SLI", does that automatically mean that they are certified for Crossfire....and vice versa? Or are those claims empty ones and I shouldn't pay attention to them?

Phil
 
fairlane said:
I was just curious but if a power supply company says that their PSU is 'certified for SLI", does that automatically mean that they are certified for Crossfire....and vice versa? Or are those claims empty ones and I shouldn't pay attention to them?

Phil
Click to expand...

No, as addressed in the review, they are not. Both NVIDIA and AMD keep their own certification programs for power supplies. As for their claims being valid, I have yet to see any terribly misleading certifications. In fact, their certifications seem to be a bit conservative if anything IMO.
 
So basically, the approval is just a badge saying that the unit passed their tests then? It's not an absolute?
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
So basically, the approval is just a badge saying that the unit passed their tests then? It's not an absolute?
Click to expand...

Basically yes, it just says that they support it and it meets their approval.

Technically, if a psu is SLI certified, it should have no problems hauling a crossfire rig around.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
So basically, the approval is just a badge saying that the unit passed their tests then? It's not an absolute?
Click to expand...
Let me add this too, SLI or CrossFire certs come in at different levels. Obviously a SLI 6600 rig is going to have a different level of power need than a SLI 8800 righ. So if you go to the SLI site, you will see the differentiations. To my knowledge, this new 1KW Ultra was tested for R600 CrossFire as well.
 
fairlane said:
I was just curious but if a power supply company says that their PSU is 'certified for SLI", does that automatically mean that they are certified for Crossfire....and vice versa? Or are those claims empty ones and I shouldn't pay attention to them?

Phil
Click to expand...

You could assume that one certification means that a PSU could be certified for the other. You'll just not find both certification logos on the same package or website due to the terms of the nVidia SLI logo usage license.

Like Kyle said though, there are different levels of certification. A PSU certified for 6600 SLI isn't necessarily going to do 8800GTX SLI, although the logo on the product and website will be the same regardless. So ultimately, you should just have enough common sense to know what to look for. Number of PCI-e connectors, 6-pin, 8-pin, amount of juice on the +12V rail. This is all they really look for when they SLI certify a power supply.
 
I am a big fan of Ultra Products. All my power supplies and Computer Cases are Ultra brand. I have been using them for long long time and i love it.

You cannot beat their price and quality.
 
This Great article got me thinking...

I know R600 is just around the corner. Are these new 8 pin connectors a requirement, or could you use the 4 - 6 pin connectors that most high-end PSU come with?

I am about to take the plunge with Intel dropping 40% off thier CPUs and R600 any day now. :confused:

Is this the PSU the best choice if I want it futureproofed?
 
Rumors abound.

The 6-pins will fit into an 8-pin socket, but we don't know the circumstances.

We've heard everything from the GPU "dumbing down" to a slower clock to just the inability to overclock.
 
I'm loving that the [H] is into PSU reviews now.. keep up the great work!

I for one would like to see some SFX PSUs on the test bench. Expectations might be a little lower here, but it would be nice to examine a couple alternatives for building a decent gaming rig in a small form factor.

I know that good gaming SFX PSUs are scarce. However, it might be nice to review something like this: http://www.silenx.com/ixtremapropsus.asp?sku=ixm-40-14 Of course, I have no idea what this company is like, but they make some claims for SLI and CrossFire support anyway.

When you guys are done pounding the 700W+ category, maybe give these a shot?
 
I recieved and unpacked mine today and I am quite impressed to say the least. The cables are over the top, flat and metallic, what more could you want? It is also very quiet and I mean quiet. Then their is the modular aspect! This is a great product.
 
It's rocking the game modular leads as the corsair's :D Look's like a mighty fine power supply.
 
I was concerned abit by the diff in exaust temps under the torture test when comparing the Ultra X3 1000 watt and thermal take toughpower 1200

both testing the same way in the torture test, both at an 80% load yet the TT showed notably favorable exaust temps over the Ultra. Although the TT is $150.00 more dollars, but you are getting 200 more watts also and I am thinking the TT will last longer as the exaust temps are similar to RPM's of a car engine. The TT doesnt work near as hard as the X3 ? 7C diff is a notable difference ?


whats your take on this ?
 
linderman said:
I was concerned abit by the diff in exaust temps under the torture test when comparing the Ultra X3 1000 watt and thermal take toughpower 1200

both testing the same way in the torture test, both at an 80% load yet the TT showed notably favorable exaust temps over the Ultra. Although the TT is $150.00 more dollars, but you are getting 200 more watts also and I am thinking the TT will last longer as the exaust temps are similar to RPM's of a car engine. The TT doesnt work near as hard as the X3 ? 7C diff is a notable difference ?


whats your take on this ?
Click to expand...

The Tt has a slightly larger fan and most likely moves air a bit faster so that would account for the lower exhaust temps. As to the X3's exhaust temps, I wouldn't be too concerned over it since it is based on a server PSU and as such it's pretty temp agnostic. Servers are run under the worst conditions imaginable so a 45C intake temp is pretty much a walk in the park for the X3.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
The modular leads on the Corsair were first introduced in that fashion by Ultra.
Click to expand...

The cables aren't patented by Ultra. Just the term "FlexForce" is a registered trademark. It's the modularity of the PSU that's patented. ;)

madmat said:
The Tt has a slightly larger fan and most likely moves air a bit faster so that would account for the lower exhaust temps. As to the X3's exhaust temps, I wouldn't be too concerned over it since it is based on a server PSU and as such it's pretty temp agnostic. Servers are run under the worst conditions imaginable so a 45C intake temp is pretty much a walk in the park for the X3.
Click to expand...

I agree that the "problem" is the amount of air being moved, so the only measurable air temperature is hot. But certianly the power supply doesn't run hotter at the same load. It stands to reason that a power supply of equivalent efficiency would not actually generate more heat. If a power supply actually ran considerably hotter than another, that additional heat would have to be represented by a lower efficiency.

As far as the durability of the unit under those conditions, I'm not too concerned. The same PSU powers a quad FX w/ 8800GTX SLI test rig I'm currently borrowing. With Burn-K7 putting a load on each of the four cores and running 3DM'06, I can easily pull 1000W from the wall. After 48 hours, the temps at the exhaust grill of the PSU were a steady 70C, but the PSU held up just fine and is still cranking away today.
 
jonnyGURU said:
The cables aren't patented by Ultra. Just the term "FlexForce" is a registered trademark. It's the modularity of the PSU that's patented. ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, I thought that they'd patented the whole FlexForce thing. They really should've.
 
Yeah.. I guess I hit the "+" for multiquote on the wrong post. :D
 
It's odd to exclude energy efficiency from performance parameters for a PSU as some of your reviews suggest. Why should it not be a performance parameter? The PSU brands vie for higher efficiency numbers more and more as consumers become increasingly concerned about energy efficiency in all products. It is more costly and more challenging to make a PSU with higher efficiency. This parameter becomes all the more important with higher power units -- 80% vs 82% at 100W output is only a 3W difference in AC input, but at 700W output, it's a 21W difference. The comment in the review, "efficiency does not preclude performance," reads mostly like an excuse for units that don't meet their own performance claims.
 
silent mike said:
It's odd to exclude energy efficiency from performance parameters for a PSU as some of your reviews suggest. Why should it not be a performance parameter? The PSU brands vie for higher efficiency numbers more and more as consumers become increasingly concerned about energy efficiency in all products. It is more costly and more challenging to make a PSU with higher efficiency. This parameter becomes all the more important with higher power units -- 80% vs 82% at 100W output is only a 3W difference in AC input, but at 700W output, it's a 21W difference. The comment in the review, "efficiency does not preclude performance," reads mostly like an excuse for units that don't meet their own performance claims.
Click to expand...

Because efficiency isn't a performance metric. Like we said to begin with in the opening editorial, as long as the unit works under our test paramteres that is what matter bar none.

Efficiency isn't a measure of the amount of DC amperage or the quality of DC current or the units regulation....so it isn't a concern. And really 21w in one or two installs with typical use is unnoticable on an electric bill. If someone were installing thousands of units in racks where they had to acount for much more important and costly thermal solutions it would matter but quite frankly that isn't the case for litrerally 99.999999999% of people reading these reviews.
 
I would respectfully disagree with that response. Higher efficeincy units are just plain built better, it takes a higher level of quality across the board to achieve the energy savings.

Which over the coarse of three years (average warranty period) can easily account for the difference in price between a lesser efficient unit and a higher efficient unit.

So in reality those savings in purchase price will often be given directly to the utility company in a matter of a few years.

http://www.pcpower.com/technology/myths/

(see myth #1) >>>>> while although I am sure these numbers are exagerated, I find the above response no more exagerated in the opposite direction.
 
linderman said:
I would respectfully disagree with that response. Higher efficeincy units are just plain built better, it takes a higher level of quality across the board to achieve the energy savings.

Which over the coarse of three years (average warranty period) can easily account for the difference in price between a lesser efficient unit and a higher efficient unit.

So in reality those savings in purchase price will often be given directly to the utility company in a matter of a few years.

http://www.pcpower.com/technology/myths/

(see myth #1) >>>>> while although I am sure these numbers are exagerated, I find the above response no more exagerated in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

I would respewctfully havew to disagree with that statement!!
Just because a PSU has a higher efficiency than another PSU does not equate to a better built PSU!!

In all fairness just because a PSU has a higher effeciency does not mean that 6 months to a year from now you won`t be doing a RMA......

There are many older PSU that are still in service and will be in service long after the PSU that has the higher effecieny has breathed its last breath....

High Efficiency does NOT equate a better built PSU!!

I would have to say being fair that the jury is still out as to what the true advantage to having a higher effeciency PSU might actually be in the long run compared to the longevity of a PSU...

Of course we take anything the PC Power & Cooling people say in the above mentioned MYTH`s URL with a huge grain of salt!!

Peace!!
 
linderman said:
I would respectfully disagree with that response. Higher efficeincy units are just plain built better, it takes a higher level of quality across the board to achieve the energy savings.

Which over the coarse of three years (average warranty period) can easily account for the difference in price between a lesser efficient unit and a higher efficient unit.

So in reality those savings in purchase price will often be given directly to the utility company in a matter of a few years.

http://www.pcpower.com/technology/myths/

(see myth #1) >>>>> while although I am sure these numbers are exagerated, I find the above response no more exagerated in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Yeah OCC yoda is mostly correct, and those numbers are extremely inflated for a home user as to be worthless. Since mike brought it up maybe he would like to expound on in reality exactly how little power a system uses being the tend at SPCR?

You would be suprised but the vast majority of systems won't be using near the 550w number PC Power and Cooling pulled out of thin air and the idea they would be doing so 24/7 is a huge exageration. Averaged out the real use is going to be probably half that if not lower. So your $218 for 3 years quickly becomes closer to $100. Or $33 a year, or about $3 a month. When the difference between the two is roughly a single light that isn't going to make a statistical difference to a single user install.

And from your own sources there...........A higher quality power supply quite simply won't neccesarily be the most efficient. There is a reason why PC Power and Cooling has stayed with the realitively inefficient Win-Tact designs. Zippy/Emacs units are not the most efficient but are some of the best built along with the likes of Delta, etc.
 
I disagree with the efficient == quality relation statement as well.

Examples of "not-as" efficient PSU's that are excellent quality: Zippy, Etasis....

Examples of very efficient PSU's that are mediocre quality: FSP Epsilon aka OCZ GameXstream, Enhance.
 
Ok then pray tell; if the quality of the general build doesnt need to be higher and the wiring more of a premium nature then why doesnt the Ultra 1000 make the 85% eff grade ???

if its nothing of conseqence to make the 85% mark, hell why not do it ? and the extra heat produced with realtion to the computer is of no concern either ????


and why are PSU's forced by specification to be a minimum of 65% for the junkers ???? why the need for 65% even ???
 
linderman said:
Ok then pray tell; if the quality of the general build doesnt need to be higher and the wiring more of a premium nature then why doesnt the Ultra 1000 make the 85% eff grade ???

if its nothing of conseqence to make the 85% mark, hell why not do it ? and the extra heat produced with realtion to the computer is of no concern either ????
Click to expand...

Because they aren't neccesarily rated at 45c at 120v for the typical load. When you raise the temperature the efficiency drops, when you lower input voltage efficiency drops (we see this between 100v and 120v....not even begining to adress the difference between 120v and 230v). In addition there are limitations in the components that will work in certain design/space/cost constraints that limit component selection and placement. The heat added my a PSU is a pitance compared to the R600 sitting under it.

and why are PSU's forced by specification to be a minimum of 65% for the junkers ???? why the need for 65% even ???
Click to expand...

Because Intel decided it was a good number.
 
Don't get me wrong guys, HardOCP is obviously going about PSU testing in the right way. My comment is a small criticism, not a big one.

The most pertinent aspect of my previous post is really the last line: PSU makers should meet their own claims.

Such claims are part of the brands' marketing campaigns, and many buyers do look at efficiency as a relevant parameter. Any differentiating parameter can be a competitive advantage. The reality of the power differences (21W or 5W or 100W) doesn't even matter; what matters is that for some folks, an efficiency spec of 85% instead of 82% may be enough to sway them to a buying decision, especially if that's the only real difference they can see between two similarly priced units. imo, every published spec does count for something -- and any spec that's not met should be considered in the overall assessment.

In your very first review, you wrote, "If it says “1000 watts” on the box, we think it should be understood to do so in a hot computer case; it is just that simple." You're basically asking for honesty in labeling and marketing; hardly a soul would disagree.

Now, that particular PSU delivered up to 958w @ 45c (instead of 1000W @ 20C). This was the main reason that you chose not to recommend it. You could have said that the unit should have been rated for 950W at 45C, and marketed as a 950W PSU... and perhaps discussed the practical consequence of that 50W shortfall.

This suggests you will "disallow" an exaggerated (OK, call it dishonest if you like) power output rating but "allow" an exaggerated efficiency rating?

(Note: The arguments against looking closely at differences in efficiency cited here could be applied here: The difference between 958W at 1000W is only 42W and hardly any system ever pulls that high a load anyway.)

Having said all that, I'll be the first to also note that small variances in test procedures, conditions and equipment can lead to different results, compared to published specs. But looking (briefly) at HardOCP's test results thus far, it appears that most tested units match claimed efficiency at 120VAC closely, which suggests that the HardOCP test system is very close to manufacturers'. There are only a couple of exceptions -- the Ultra-X units, the Enermax (? -- I think the official efficiency spec is not mentioned in the review).
 
With the Enermax it was clearly be billed as at 230v input and rated at 50c. The X3 doesn't give us either piece of information and what I was able to gather seems to indicate it is rated at 40c....and if the input was 230v then it would have most likely hit its efficiency numbers. That is why it didn't get docked. We can't dock the Enermax for not doing it at 230v when we don't test at 230v and I can't really go after the X3 when it did do everything else it was billed to do with the exception of the unqualified efficiency terms.

But yes overall power output, quality, and cosntuction are more important than the units efficiency in our testing.

Coming up I have a set I went out and purchased that very reason are going to show an interesting difference between the previous units we have seen and the rseults the yprovide in regards to not only efficiency but all of our metrics.
 
I swapped my PC1Kw for the ULTRA X-3 and I could not be happier. The X-3 is silent and performs exceptionally well and my system pulls some power.
 
Okay I just ordered one of these PSU's for a new I7 computer I'm building but have a concern.

I'm going to be using a Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P MB and in the manual that it says:

ATX_12V_2X/ATX (2x4 12V Power Connector

• a power supply providing a 2x4 12V power connector is recommended by the CPU manufacturer when using an Intel Extreme Edition CPU (130W).
• To meet expansion requirements, it is recommended that a power supply that can withstand high power consumption be used ( 5 00W or greater). If a power supply is used that does not provide the required power, the result can lead to an unstable or unbootable system.

Will this be an issue as according to the website where I ordered the PSU it says it comes with the following connectors:

1 x 20/24-pin Mainboard
1 x 4-pin P4
1 x 8-pin P8
4 x 6-pin PCI Express
2 x 8-pin PCI Express
10 x SATA
10 x 4-pin Molex
4 x 4-pin FDD
3 x 3-pin Fan

or is the item I highlighted above supposed to sever the purpose? Sorry if it seems like a stupid question but this is my first really major build and I want to do things right. In the end the computer will consist of:
• CoolerMaster Stacker Case ST101

• Ultra X3 1000w Modular PSU

• Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition Processor

• Cooler Master V8 CPU Heat sink and fan

• GIGABYTE GA-EX58-UD4P 1366 X58 MB

• 12 gigs of CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB (6 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600

• 2 WD10EADS SATA 1T Green Drives ( the new 3 platter drives)

• Seagate 7200.11 SATA 1T Drive

• 1 CD/DVD Burner with Lightscribe SATA

• 1 BluRay Burnewr SATA

• Sapphire 4870x2 2 gig vid card

• Hauppauge 1800 DVR TV card PCI-e 1

Hope this will keep me happy for some time but would appreciate opinions and an answer on the 2x 4 pin 12v issue if possible ASAP
 
So am I right in supposing its the 1 x 8-pin P8 connector I will use. I blew so much money just want to make sure I don't screw up anything.

For instance when I apply Arctic Silver 5 to the CPU, if I understand their instructions located here:

http://www.arcticsilver.com/ins_route_step2intelas5.html

I don't want to cover the whole top of the cpu just draw a thin line of the compound horizontally with the cpu arrow pointing up and to the left. Does that sound right?

On a side note Fedex just showed up with my MB and chip drools drool but my new PSU and heat sink wont show up until thurs :)
 
bratboy said:
So am I right in supposing its the 1 x 8-pin P8 connector I will use. I blew so much money just want to make sure I don't screw up anything.
Click to expand...
There's a 2x2 and a 2x4 above each other on the PSU's back panel. Make sure it's that one, not an 8-pin video plug.
I don't want to cover the whole top of the cpu just draw a thin line of the compound horizontally with the cpu arrow pointing up and to the left. Does that sound right?
Click to expand...
Correct. Obviously use the actual, small triangle, not- what I thought they meant- the two long gold bars. D'oh!
 
Ahh now I stoodunder. Just heard back from Arctic and this is what they said:

"If you orient the CORE i7 chip where the triangle marker is up and to the left it will put the cores on a horizontal plane. With the cores (quad) being on a horizontal plane you will apply a horizontal line depicted in our quad core instructions"

As for the other I'll have the PSU here tomorrow just wish I could find a pdf of the manual so I could red it ahead of time but had no luck finding one so far
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top