In Win GreenMe 650Wby Martin Kaffei on June 6, 2012 5:10 AM EST
- Posted in
In Win GreenMe 650W
In Win sent us their newest model GreenMe rated at 650W. Billed as an eco-friendly alternative to the usual PSUs, In Win boasts about the reduced energy costs associated with the high efficiency design. Given the eco emphasis, we'll examine how the PSU does in those areas along with the usual tests.
In Win uses an environmental friendly packaging composed of recycled materials. There's also a sticker stating that the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) gets one dollar for every GreenMe sold. However, there is some debate over how WWF is funded, with allegations that they have questionable industry ties. Regardless of whether that's true or not, we do like the idea of helping environmental associations.
The real question of course is how environmentally friends the GreenMe PSU line is in practice. Is 80 Plus Bronzer efficient enough for energy conservationists? And where are the lower power models, as a "green PC" probably doesn't need 650W? We'll leave the debate on those areas up to the reader; for now, let's see what you get with the GreenMe and how it performs.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Lqdslvrz - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - linkGrr troll write long response! Troll must be right!
Some ppl just don't get it.
taltamir - Friday, June 8, 2012 - linkDisagreeing with your faith does not make him a troll.
amosbatto - Saturday, June 9, 2012 - linkActually you are wrong about the meaning of "genetically modified". Cross breeding, grafting, and all the traditional means of exchanging genetic material is a very different process from what is is called "genetically modified". The traditional ways of mixing genetic material do not pose the same risks.
For example, you don't have to take part of a virus to insert the new genetic material. We don't know if that virus might become active or start creating a new supervirus that we can't control. Through cross-breeding, you can't make terminator seeds, which threaten the ability of farmers to save their seeds and replant, so they become controlled by Monsanto, ConAgra, etc. You can't patent a cross-bred organism, but you can patent a GMO, so you can sue farmers and destroy them (which has happened to thousands of US and Canadian farmers). You can't easily make a cross-bred plant which is "roundup-ready", so it survives under heavy herbicide use or it will only germinate if that herbicide is present. You can't create a plant that starts producing its own insecticide in such high doses, that it runs the risk of making bugs which are resistant and suddenly we have huge risks of not being able to control pests without using even more dangerous chemicals.
GMO places huge power in the hands of big agra-corporations and threatens to destroy our genetic diversity, because big AG wants everyone to use their small number of seeds. In the long run, it threatens to destroy small farmers around the world. So far, GMO is used widely in only 4 crops (soy, corn, cotton, canola), but it is being developed for hundreds of others. So far, it has done nothing to feed the world, since its modifications are basically designed to tolerate more herbicide and to make terminator seeds which can't be replanted.
All evidence shows that the best way to increase agricultural output is to stop growing monocrops (which GMO promotes) and return to growing a large diversity of crops next to each other (as organic farmers do). However, returning to small and diverse plots takes a lot of human labor and doesn't concentrate wealth like monocrops, which is why it has been abandoned in the US, but it does produce the greatest amount of food per acre and is the best way to feed a hungry planet. It is the only sustainable solution.
Lqdslvrz - Monday, June 11, 2012 - link+1
Finally someone that has done some research, as I mentioned earlier.
The GMO food crops are not grown without pesticides, actually they (through DNA manipulation) take in the pesticide and become one with it so that it is not harmful to the plant. But now the plant is the same as the pesticide. The GMO seed is sold WITH the pesticide.
If a person wanted to learn more, be sure to read from Independent sources, not from what's covered in the mass media, or from corporate spokespeople/politicians.
Check out: responsibletechnology.org and read the works of people like Dr. Árpád Pusztai.
Ask yourself this: Why do animals, when given a choice of (the same) food with and food without GMOs do they choose the non-GMO food?
cyberguyz - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link+1 to this.
Though having a power supply company saying it has a "green" product simply because they donate a dollar per PSU to a wildlife preservation organization is pretty dumb. The power supply is mediocre. There are far more eco-friendly products out there that don't plaster "green" and "eco" all over their packaging.
taltamir - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - linkI agree with that. You can donate a dollar yourself, its just a gimmick.
Pessimism - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - linkHow a plastic bag containing a plastic tie, another plastic tie around the power cables, a metal and plastic zip tie around the power cord, and a plastic bag around the power supply are 100% recyclable and environmentally friendly?
fluxtatic - Friday, June 8, 2012 - linkRather than getting all up in arms over the 'evil liberals' that 'forcing environmental regulations down our throats', get pissed about the deregulation that destroyed our economies - banks and other corporations being allowed to get away with whatever they want is the problem. The truly blind here are the people that have this idea that the 'libtards' are going to turn the US into some sort of enviro-China. Politicians don't give a damn about any of that, unless it pays. Who pays? Giant corporations - whatever they want goes. Wake up to what's really happening - not that environmentalism (or it's antithesis) doesn't come into play - look at Monsanto and the damage they've done. To be afraid of the US passing draconian enviro regulations is just ignorant.
For homie ranting about Van Jones being a communist - who cares? I take it you're of that age when someone being a communist was equivalent to being Satan. Far left beliefs, at least, are in the interest of helping people, or rather, the people. Far right beliefs tend to be about helping corporations in furtherance of personal greed.
All that aside, this is a late entry in the great greenwashing trend - as others mentioned, don't tell me you're giving a buck to the WWF while you're selling me a mediocre power supply. I suspect this is the way InWin decided to make this also-ran stand out. Give me 80+ Platinum and cut the price. If you insist, thrown in some marketing BS about how now with the money I've saved, I can throw some dollars at the WWF or whatever environmental organization floats my boat. Naturally, there'd be a lot less money going to the WWF that way, but at least it feels less sleazy.
Lqdslvrz - Friday, June 8, 2012 - link+1
amosbatto - Saturday, June 9, 2012 - link"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 almost all cases, the environmental solution is to continue using old electronics, rather than buying new electronics, because an enormous amount of energy and resources is used in the fabrication of new electronics and electronics releases toxins and endocrine disruptors into the environment when thrown into a landfill (or recycled in places like China or Nigeria). According to a 2005 study by Eric Williams, roughly 80% of the total energy of electronics comes from fabrication and only 20% from its use.
However, the situation is very different when talking about power supplies. There may be environmental benefits to buying an efficient power supply if you are using a standard power supply. Standard power supplies are only 60%-70% efficient when converting AC to DC, compared to 80%-90% efficient for high quality power supplies. A PSU which is 20% more efficient in the conversion of current will use much less energy and produce far few greenhouse gases and contaminants from the burning of fossil fuels than the fabrication of a new power supply. In contrast, it doesn't take that many resources to fabricate a new PSU, compared to the resources it may save if it is efficient. So true environmentalists will want to junk their inefficient PSUs and buy a new ones.
I am glad that this article takes a skeptical view of the "green" claims, but there is a reason why environmentalists want a green PSU. Still, these observations were spot on:
1. This PSU needs too much power to be a truly "green" PSU. An environmentalist wants a computer that needs no more than 350W. They should offer lower wattage models.
2. The efficiency should be even higher, like silver or gold to convince a true environmentalist.
There are other things that need to be investigated. For example, are the cables free of PVC, bromated flame retardants, phthalates and other dangerous materials? For me that is a major concern, but very few electronics makers will publish this information.