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.

 

Delivery Contents, Power Rating and Fan
POST A COMMENT

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • Onus - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Preaching to the choir, brother; preaching to the choir...
    The parasitic load on our society is simply incredible. They didn't come here with the colonists; where'd they all come from?

    Well, this is a tech site, so I'd best not get started...
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    I don't know about global warming etc, but I did grow up in the Los Angeles area, and when I was younger we had days that were so smoggy, we weren't allowed to go outside for recess. This was in the late seventies, and smog was pretty bad in those days. However, since CA enacted stricter smog rules on cars and on industry, things have gotten much better, and the no-recess smog days are now a thing of the past. the air is noticeably cleaner - just shows that legislation can be a good thing sometimes. Reply
  • zinfamous - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    pathetic Reply
  • EnzoFX - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Your ignorance is appalling. Reply
  • garcondebanane - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Science grants aren't handed out to get to a particular conclusion, they're handed out to find out if such a conclusion can in fact be made about reality. And regarding disagreements, there are plenty out there in science, but global warming isn't high on that list.

    Don't believe everything your politicians tell you - look up peer reviewed journals in reputable publications - you don't have to read everything, even the titles are telling. Think for yourself if you really believe in making good choices. You're right that it's all about legislation, money, and control over your lives. But make sure you know what's fact and what's propaganda before you go shitting on people in comment threads.

    And did you just make the jump from talking about climate science to communist revolutionaries? Because that's just a whole new level of crazy, man...
    Reply
  • ggathagan - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    "Science grants aren't handed out to get to a particular conclusion, they're handed out to find out if such a conclusion can in fact be made about reality."

    Ahhh... Hahahaha!!!!

    One of the funniest things I've read all day.

    Here, let me help you on that:
    Science grants aren't SUPPOSED TO BE handed out to get to a particular conclusion, they're SUPPOSED TO BE handed out to find out if such a conclusion can in fact be made about reality.

    Global cooling/warming/climate change is a very lucrative market.
    Reply
  • garcondebanane - Thursday, June 07, 2012 - link

    I can't fault your distrust for science, but do you really have good reasons to think the way you do? Reports from impartial sources, perhaps? Or intuition?

    Regulations are expensive industry as a whole. If corporations could have it their way, they'd completely ignore the possibility of manmade climate change until the damage it does starts affecting the bottom line. From where I stand it looks far more lucrative to downplay the human effect on climate.
    Reply
  • amosbatto - Saturday, June 09, 2012 - link

    Actually, you can't find much disagreement among the scientists about the basic idea that the planet is heating up and that humans are the chief cause. There is less disagreement in the scientific community about global warming than about many commonly accepted ideas, like evolution and the standard theory of physics. The evidence is so overwhelming that almost every national and international body of scientists which has bothered to issue a statement on the issue agrees.

    Among real scientists there are only a handful who question that the planet heating up and that humans are the chief cause. Yes, there are huge lists of papers like the one on populartechnology DOT net

    (Sorry, I tried to give you the link but the spam blocker wouldn't allow it.)

    However, almost none of the authors of those papers are doing active research and their arguments have been overwhelming debunked. There are a few accredited scientists in the list with PhDs, like Richard S. Lindzen and Fred Singer, but almost none of them are doing any active research (at least any that has been published). Suspiciously almost all of these scientists have received funding in one way or another from organizations like the Western Fuel Association or Exxon which have a financial interest in opposing the measure to reduce greenhouse gases. The arguments against global warming which have been most cited by doubters have come from statisticians (such as Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels, etc) who don't have any deep knowledge of the material and their arguments are rapidly debunked by real scientists. If you look at almost all the scientists who are deniers listed by wikipedia, almost none of them have published a peer-reviewed article about the matter. In most cases, they are quoted making some comment, but offering very little to back up the argument.
    See: wikipedia's "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"

    The best evidence of a scientific consensus on the matter was a study by Naomi Oreskes, who did a search for peer-reviewed papers which mention global warming and climate change published between 1993 and 2003. She took a random sample of those papers and analyzed 928 of them. Out of those, she was unable to find a single paper which questioned the scientific consensus that global warming was occurring. Google this to find the article: "BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686.

    As for the argument that scientists have been changing their mind, it is true that in the 1970s, a minority of scientists thought that the planet might start to cool, but that was a minority opinion among climatologists and during the 1970s global temperatures were not rising very much. Good science demands that you look at the data and once the temperatures began to rise dramatically in the 80s and 90s, almost all scientists looked at the data and came to the same conclusion. Most of the 0.8 degrees C of warming which has occurred since 1980, so it isn't surprising that the consensus was only reached after the warming became a very clear trend.

    You will read lots of utter junk on this subject because many interests do not want it to be true, so I suggest that you start by reading Robert Strom's book, Hot House for a good introduction on the subject. Then read James Hansen's book Storms of My Grandchildren. Once you understand the basic science, you will start to understand why the denialists' arguments don't make any sense. For example, the radiation from the sun is cyclical and is currently reducing, yet denialists love to claim that the sun is causing global warming. Another favorite argument is that volcanic activity is causing the warming, but scientists say that a big volcanic eruption actually blocks the sun, so it lowers temperatures. Scientists can very accurately measure its effect as James Hansen did with the eruption of Pinatubo in 1992. Denialists also love to point to the scientific coverup of "climategate", but when you actually analyze what happened, the scientists were talking about how to represent proxy data which didn't agree with direct measurements from thermometers. There was no coverup. They clearly told everyone that they were adjusting the proxy data and it was duly argued about in the IPCC.

    Any time you read a denialist argument, you should go to Joe Romm's thinkprogress.org site and see what climatologists say about the argument. You will quickly see that most of the denialist arguments don't hold up under scrutiny. Take the time to educate yourself on the subject, before accusing thousands of climatologists of being wrong.
    Reply
  • Narcofis - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    WWF reminds me of my youth for the World Wrestling Federation... That was my first though anyway. I'm not a big fan of these types of Marketing Campaign. As a tech consumer always looking for the best bang for the buck these type of advertisement deters me from purchasing the product. To me, the word eco-friendly doesn't associate with longevity and quality build of a product. Eco-friendly is suppose to deteriorate fast in the environment; in a PSU I'm looking for a product that will last for a long period of time. Reply
  • MikeNCtrlPHX - Wednesday, June 06, 2012 - link

    Just a thought.

    Mike
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now