Part Analysis
| General Data | |
| Manufacturer (OEM) | HuntKey |
| PCB Type | Single-Sided |
| Primary Side | |
| Transient Filter | 4x Y caps, 2x X caps, 2x CM chokes, 1x MOV |
| Inrush Protection | 1x NTC Thermistor Joyin 15S070L (7 ohm) & Relay |
| Bridge Rectifier(s) |
1x GSIB2580 (800V, 25A @ 98°C)
|
| APFC MOSFETs |
2x Infineon IPA60R190P6 (650V, 12.7A @ 100°C, Rds(on): 0.190Ohm)
|
| APFC Boost Diode |
1x WeEn BYC8X600P (650V, 8A @ 130°C)
|
| Bulk Cap(s) |
1x SamXon (450V, 390uF, 2,000h @ 85°C, LP)
|
| Main Switchers |
2x STMicroelectronics STF24N60DM2 (650V, 11A @ 100°C, Rds(on): 0.200Ohm)
|
| Resonant Controller |
HK6288 (NXP TEA2017)
|
| APFC Controller |
Champion CM6500UNX
|
| Topology |
Primary side: APFC, Half-Bridge & LLC Resonant converter
Secondary side: Synchronous Rectification & DC-DC converters |
| Secondary Side | |
| +12V MOSFETs | 2x Oriental Semiconductor SFS06R02PF (60V, 200A @ 25°C, Rds(on): 2.5mOhm) |
| 5V & 3.3V | DC-DC Converters: 3x Huajing HGQ022N03A (30V, 94A @ 100°C, Rds(on): 2.2mOhm) PWM Controller(s): Anpec APW7159C |
| Filtering Capacitors | Electrolytic: 3x AiSHi (2-4,000h @105°C, RE) 2x AiSHi (3-6,000h @105°C, RF) 2x SamXon (1-4,000h @105°C, GF) 2x SamXon (2,000h @105°C, KM) 1x SamXon (2-5,000h @105°C, GK) Polymer: 9x Polycap, 6x X-Con (ULR) |
| Supervisor IC | Sitronix ST9S313C-DAG |
| Fan Model | HK AS12025H12 (120mm, 12V, 0.25A, Sleeve Bearing Fan) |
| 5VSB | |
| Rectifier |
1x MBR1060CT SBR (60V, 10A)
|
| Standby PWM Controller |
Chipown PN8177
|
This budget platform uses a cheap single-sided PCB and affordable parts. The design is contemporary, though, with a half-bridge and a resonant converter on the primary side. A synchronous rectification scheme handles the 12V rail on the secondary side, and a pair of DC-DC converters generates the minor rails.
The transient filtering stage has all the necessary parts to block incoming and outgoing EMI emissions. Typically, it starts at the AC receptacle and continues on the main PCB.
There is an MOV to protect from voltage surges and an NTC thermistor rated at 7 ohms when cold. Moreover, a bypass relay supports the NTC thermistors.
There is a single GSIB2580 bridge rectifier that can handle up to 25A of current, so it is more than enough for this PSU.
The APFC converter uses two IPA60R190P6 FETs and one WeEn boost diode. The bulk cap is by SamXon, and its capacity is low at 390uF. This is an 85°C cap, so its lifetime is 4x lower than that of a 105°C cap under the same conditions.
The APFC controller is a Champion CM6502UHHX.
The two STMicroelectronics STF24N60DM2 primary switching FETs are installed in a half-bridge topology, and an LLC resonant converter is used for higher efficiency.
The resonant controller is an HK6288 (NXP TEA2017). This is a digitally configurable LLC and PFC controller.
The PSU’s main transformer.
Two Oriental Semiconductor SFS06R02PF FETs regulate the 12V rail.
Two DC-DC converters generate the minor rails.
AiSHi and SamXon provide the electrolytic filtering capacitors. Polycap and X-Con make the polymer caps. These caps are of lower quality compared to other popular brands used in affordable PSUs, like Teapo and Elite.
You can find more information about capacitor performance and other specs below:
The supervisor controller is a Sitronix ST9S313C-DAG
The standby PWM controller is a Chipown PN8177, and the secondary side rectifier is MBR1060CT.
Six polymer caps at the face of the modular panel form an extra ripple-filtering layer.
The soldering quality is decent.
The cooling fan is HK AS12025H12, using a sleeve bearing.
It appears the unit failed to meet the Cybenetics Gold level solely due to 5VSB efficiency. This raises concerns about the potential for misleading conclusions, particularly when that parameter is not included in 80 PLUS certification.
Additionally, the loading values used in your test differ significantly from those defined by the 80 PLUS program. While 80 PLUS includes the -12V rail at 300mA, your data shows discrepancies of 1–2A on the 12V, 3.3V, and 5V rails. These are not trivial differences—they are large enough to prevent any fair or technically valid comparison between results. If the loading methodology is not consistent, any efficiency conclusions drawn across programs are fundamentally flawed.
In the interest of transparency and data integrity, I would be open to independently testing this unit to conduct an inter-laboratory comparison. This could help validate methodologies and clarify any discrepancies in the results.
First of all:
Cybenetics is ISO 17025 AND ISO 17065 compliant, so it already conducts essential inter-laboratory comparisons.
Cybenetics DOES have a lab on its own and doesn’t use outside labs.
Cybenetics reports are ISO 17065 and ISO 17025 compliant. 80 PLUS reports don’t even mention the equipment used!
-12V rail isn’t use for many years now and doesn’t play any significant role.
Why should someone follow 80 PLUS load values? Also, while 80 PLUS uses only 3 load levels, Cybenetics uses more than 1450 different ones.
Cybenetics, in case you are confused, has its own independent rating system. It doesn’t have anything to do with the flawed 80 PLUS rating system, which anyone can easily fool.
About this specific PSU:
It passes ErP only because Cybenetics allows a 5% margin of efficiency.
It doesn’t get a 230V rating because of the increased vampire power.
It doesn’t get an ATX v3.1 compliance because of the short hold-up time.
No ALPM support. T3 >150ms
Also, who are you to independently test the unit and provide inter-laboratory comparisons? Do you own/have an ISO 17025-compliant lab? Moreover, let’s entertain the idea that you do have an ISO 17025 lab. This is NOT enough because you have to use this system to run inter-laboratory comparisons.
https://www.eptis.bam.de/eptis/Security/login
Please do your homework before you try to challenge Cybenetics. I am not saying that they are perfect because nobody is, but they at least know their work WELL!
Aris,
Thank you for the detailed reply. My intent was not to challenge Cybenetics’ credibility but to highlight key differences in methodologies that can cause confusion when cross-referencing results between rating systems, especially among consumers or reviewers who may not fully understand the distinctions.
I fully recognize that Cybenetics and 80 PLUS operate independently with different scopes, metrics, and testing protocols. That said, when both certifications are presented side-by-side without clarifying those fundamental differences, such as the inclusion of 5VSB in one and not the other, it opens the door to misleading comparisons, particularly in ISO/IEC 17025 contexts where measurement traceability and equivalence are key.
To clarify: 80 PLUS conducts testing exclusively through ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratory. Our equipment used is tracked and documented internally as part of our compliance framework, even if not publicly listed on test reports. The point about load values isn’t a demand that Cybenetics follow 80 PLUS protocols, it’s a recognition that differing load conditions (especially when varying by amps across key rails) will inevitably yield different results, making side-by-side comparisons non-equivalent without proper context.
My offer to conduct independent testing was not intended to diminish Cybenetics’ capabilities, but rather to initiate a collaborative effort to improve transparency and understanding between our approaches. I welcome the opportunity for a joint inter-laboratory comparison between the 80 PLUS lab and Cybenetics, with the goal of identifying whether differences in reported results stem from test methodology, certification criteria, or actual product performance.
I believe this type of collaboration would strengthen trust across the industry and ensure that consumers and manufacturers alike benefit from more informed, technically grounded assessments.
Looking forward to your thoughts and the possibility of working together.
Best regards,
Peyton Sizemore
80 PLUS Program
Dear Peyton,
Thank you for the detailed response. My suspicion that you belong to the 80 PLUS program is confirmed now 🙂 It is nice to know you!
Why do you want to discuss this on a review forum and not officially through the proper channels? HWbusters just gets data from Cybenetics, as do many other sites and PSU tier lists. I believe a possible collaboration should be discussed officially and through an official channel, not through a forum post.
About this, you mention:
“I welcome the opportunity for a joint inter-laboratory comparison between the 80 PLUS lab and Cybenetics, with the goal of identifying whether differences in reported results stem from test methodology, certification criteria, or actual product performance.”
My skepticism is that there can be no direct comparison between Cybenetics methodology and 80 PLUS. One uses >1450 different load combinations to derive the results, among others, while the other program 3-4 different load levels. The differences are already highlighted in many reviews, white papers, etc. These two are entirely different systems. There is just no comparison between them, so you cannot compare two entirely different things. PT tests, we already conduct with other labs through the EPTIS system.
For anything further you could connect with Cybenetics on their official email. Info at Cybenetics.com
Thank you for the friendly conversation! I wish you the best of success. After all, our goals are identical: a greener environment with less energy wasted!
Dr. Aris Bitziopoulos
Aris i just curious about new GAMEMAX LIONCORE PSU that certified Cybenetics, on TOMSHARDWARE COMPUTEX article they said they insured Lifetime warranty, i hope you just complete the review as soon as possible https://www.techpowerup.com/336774/gamemax-unveils-latest-innovations-at-computex-2025
hm lifetime warranty is a bad idea for any PSU, not only for these specific ones.