Hold Up Time
The hold-up time is dead low, which is one reason this unit is not ATX v3.1 compliant.
Inrush Current
The inrush currents are at normal levels.
Leakage Current
Leakage current refers to the small amount of current that flows through an insulating material or a semiconductor device when it is ideally supposed to be non-conductive. It is typically seen in electronics, such as transistors, capacitors, and insulators, where the current leaks due to imperfections or unintended pathways, even when the device is “off.”
Leakage current in power circuits is an alternating current flowing through the earthing conductor caused mainly by the EMC filter’s Y capacitors (Cy). The more Y capacitors, the higher the leakage current can be!
The IEC 62368-1, which replaces the IEC 60950 OFF (Office Equipment) and IEC 60065 TRON (Electronics, entertainment), defines the limits for maximum leakage (touch) current.
- Normal Condition: Maximum touch current = 3.5 mA
- Single Fault Condition: Maximum touch current = 10 mA
The leakage current is low.
Timings
The PSU doesn’t support Alternative Low Power Modes because its T3 timings are outside the permitted 100- 150ms range.
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.