ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

[halaster79]

I'm looking for some ultra low ESR replacements for an 8mm 1200uf 6.3v for my motherboard. all my search results keep turning up is cap plague era Rubycon MCZ. Any suggestions? or did the mcz's miss the plague for the most part? Is the ULTRA LOW ESR always labeled at the top, if it is ultra low esr, of the cap datasheets, or is there another way to tell?

[Topcat]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

Rubycon MCZ was not affected by the plague. They will be fine.

[halaster79]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

even if they were made in 2005?

[Topcat]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

new rubycons don't die on the shelf....so they should be fine. If they're in the board, you'll know it if they're bad....they'll be bloated and leaking crud all over the place. Heat kills.

[halaster79]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

cool, so i should be good to go for my k8s-la motherboard now! i'm using:

1200uf 6.3v rubycon mcz
1500uf 6.3v nichicon hz
820uf 6.3v nichicon hn

does that sound decent for the board and ultra low ESR capacitors?

[Topcat]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

Yup, all are of the ultra-low ESR persuasion. You'll be fine....unless ofcourse you bought them off ebay, and they're fakes...

[halaster79]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

which newer United Chemicons series are ultra low ESR? i am replacing old cap plague Nippon KZG ones, (same company) by the way. Is Chemicon considered reliable now days?

[Topcat]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

KZG and KZJ were the only series of UCC that were really known to be problematic....and as far as I know, their only ultra-low water-based series.

[momaka]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

KZG and KZJ were the only series of UCC that were really known to be problematic....and as far as I know, their only ultra-low water-based series.

TMV is another one. (And TMZ too, I think?)
I think they are most commonly found as 4V, 820 uF caps around the CPU on socket 775 motherboards. My Asus P5GC-MX had them (along with KZGs everywhere else).

KZG is by far the worst though. The will bulge even on the shelf. In fact, they are more likely to bulge due to not being used due to unstable electrolyte.

cool, so i should be good to go for my k8s-la motherboard now! i'm using:

1200uf 6.3v rubycon mcz
1500uf 6.3v nichicon hz
820uf 6.3v nichicon hn

does that sound decent for the board and ultra low ESR capacitors?

Sure.

Just make sure the Nichicon HN/HZ caps have post-2004 date codes (i.e. H05xx, H06xx, H07xx, A05xx, A06xx, A07xx, etc.). Otherwise, you could be putting bad caps back into your system.

And as TC said, it's probably better to *avoid* eBay for high-quality e-lytic caps.

[Wester547]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

TMV is another one. (And TMZ too, I think?)
I think they are most commonly found as 4V, 820 uF caps around the CPU on socket 775 motherboards. My Asus P5GC-MX had them (along with KZGs everywhere else).

TMV and TMJ are very failure prone, but I only know of very few instances of TMZs failing (there is no evidence that they are even ultra low ESR electrolytics so I think they are reliable).

KZG is by far the worst though. The will bulge even on the shelf. In fact, they are more likely to bulge due to not being used due to unstable electrolyte.

KZG and KZJ are the worst. They are more likely to pop in storage because unwanted chemical reactions take place during non-operating hours/between power cycles (or storage time) which bias across the plates somewhat prolongs (although heat will undoubtedly expedite all chemical reactions). For whatever reason, the 16V KZGs (and KZJs?) seem to be a bit more stable than the 6.3V/10V KZGs and KZJs, even in storage (although they still die early deaths). Also, I had mistakenly thought until now that capacitors with their full leads intact that had never been soldered were essentially "unused", but that isn't true, at least not of the good brands. One of the last steps of the manufacturing process is known as "aging" or "burn-in", where defects and cracks in the anodic dielectric are repaired (that could have occurred during manufacturing as the dielectric is very fragile) by applying the rated voltage to the electrolytic at the rated temperature (or possibly lower) for a sufficient time period. This is largely done to rule out infant mortality failures.

Sure.

Just make sure the Nichicon HN/HZ caps have post-2004 date codes (i.e. H05xx, H06xx, H07xx, A05xx, A06xx, A07xx, etc.). Otherwise, you could be putting bad caps back into your system.

I wouldn't risk 2005 datecodes, at least not for HN and HZ (would not risk early 2005 datecodes for HM either). Those seem unreliable.

[momaka]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

I wouldn't risk 2005 datecodes

2005 is mostly okay in my experience, especially the 16V caps. I've re-used a ton of Xbox 360 caps - particularly the 6.3V 2200 uF HZ and 16V 1500 uF HN. Of those, I've had only a handful (maybe 2 or 3 total) of the 6.3V 2200 uF HZ with H05 datecodes bulge in storage. So yes, even the 2005 HN and HZ are not perfect, but they are far from being as bad as the very failure-prone 2001-2004 HM and HN.

Most of my 6.3V 2200 uF HZ appear to be okay so far and successfully passed my reforming process as well as the ESR/capacity check. Some of the H05 caps did appear to "loose" charge a bit faster than their H06 siblings, but nothing alarming. I pulled some of them as far back as spring/summer 2012 and had them in storage since. No problems whatsoever with that.

[Wester547]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

2005 is mostly okay in my experience, especially the 16V caps. I've re-used a ton of Xbox 360 caps - particularly the 6.3V 2200 uF HZ and 16V 1500 uF HN. Of those, I've had only a handful (maybe 2 or 3 total) of the 6.3V 2200 uF HZ with H05 datecodes bulge in storage. So yes, even the 2005 HN and HZ are not perfect, but they are far from being as bad as the very failure-prone 2001-2004 HM and HN.

Most of my 6.3V 2200 uF HZ appear to be okay so far and successfully passed my reforming process as well as the ESR/capacity check. Some of the H05 caps did appear to "loose" charge a bit faster than their H06 siblings, but nothing alarming. I pulled some of them as far back as spring/summer 2012 and had them in storage since. No problems whatsoever with that.

I've seen many 2200uF 6.3V and 1000uF 10V early-mid 2005 date coded HNs at least on Dell Dimension 3000, 4700, 8400, GC068, and PowerEdge SC420 motherboards (along with Intel D925 series motherboards) pop for no reason (in the same places that KZJ would pop, with the same frequency) where the MCZs were just fine.

Also, as an addendum, I've seen many late 2001 and early 2002 datecoded 1800uF 16V and 1000uF 16V HMs (and KZGs too) on the VRM input of the CPU buck regulator on Dell Dimension 4300/Optiplex GX240/GX260 motherboards do just fine where all the 6.3V capacitors were always bad. That's why I cast skepticism upon HMs, HNs, and HZs with 2005 datecodes.

And even 1500uF 16V KZJs do just fine on those Xbox 360 motherboards, so the HNs doing fine doesn't say much.

[halaster79]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

1200uf 6.3v rubycon mcz from 2005
1500uf 6.3v nichicon hz 2014
820uf 6.3v nichicon hn 2012
does that seem legit?

[halaster79]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

why is suncon so hard to find on online websites? Especially ME-WG series? My current hp computer has suncons, and they don't seem to have any problems yet.

[halaster79]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

is dementtech on ebay known to be crooked? i do buy lots from digi-key and mouser though

[Wester547]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

Also, I'm pretty sure momaka meant 680uF 4V TMVs and not 820uF. Although 820uF 4V polymers are readily found by either Chemi-con, Fujitsu, or Sanyo on old Xbox 360 Xenon motherboards in the GPU VRM output. I also want to clarify that I don't think all 2005 HMs / HNs / HZs are crap even if I don't fully trust them. For an example, you'd be hard pressed to find an 1800uF 16V Nichicon HN (2003 datecodes) that hadn't blown on the VRM input of Dell Optiplex GX270 motherboards, but I too haven't seen a blown 1500uF 16V Nichicon HN with 2005 datecodes except on those 360 motherboards that were "oven" tricked.

1200uf 6.3v rubycon mcz from 2005
1500uf 6.3v nichicon hz 2014
820uf 6.3v nichicon hn 2012
does that seem legit?

Those are fine if they're real.

why is suncon so hard to find on online websites? Especially ME-WG series? My current hp computer has suncons, and they don't seem to have any problems yet.

In general, Suncon's availability isn't very good compared to Nichicon, Rubycon, Chemi-con, and Panasonic. I recommend any of those four brands online. Digikey, Mouser, Farnell (element14), and Newark are good sources for genuine capacitors (this website also sells the aforementioned brands).

is dementtech on ebay known to be crooked? i do buy lots from digi-key and mouser though

I would not risk anyone on eBay. Not even egecku, who has also been known to sell counterfeit capacitors.

[halaster79]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

i like Rubycon, Nichicon, Suncon, and Panasonic, at this point I'm not a fan of chemi-con

[ChaosLegionnaire]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

cap forgers luv faking suncon/sanyo caps for some reason. be very careful where u get them from if buying sanyo or suncon caps.

[momaka]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

I've seen many 2200uF 6.3V and 1000uF 10V early-mid 2005 date coded HNs at least on Dell Dimension 3000, 4700, 8400, GC068, and PowerEdge SC420 motherboards (along with Intel D925 series motherboards) pop for no reason (in the same places that KZJ would pop, with the same frequency) where the MCZs were just fine.

I guess it is possible for HN and HZ to have slightly differing results. The Xbox 360 has 6.3V 2200 uF HZ caps. Only the 16V 1500 uF are HN.

And even 1500uF 16V KZJs do just fine on those Xbox 360 motherboards, so the HNs doing fine doesn't say much.

Well, I have about 10-15 or so 16V 1500 uF KZJ caps. Of those, 3 bulged in storage. I also have about 40 or so same size and capacity (16V 1500 uF) Nichicon HN caps, of which about 1/2 to 1/3 are with 2005 date codes. From these, I had 0 (zero) bulge in storage or test bad.

That said, you're still right that this doesn't say much. But overall, I've seen many more failed KZJ than HN with 2005 datecode.

Also, I'm pretty sure momaka meant 680uF 4V TMVs and not 820uF.

Always glad to have you as my personal spell-checker . If I don't get the series wrong, I'll get the capacity wrong.
Yes, 680 uF is correct.

cap forgers luv faking suncon/sanyo caps for some reason. be very careful where u get them from if buying sanyo or suncon caps.

+1

[Wester547]

Re: ultra low esr replacements 1200uf

I guess it is possible for HN and HZ to have slightly differing results. The Xbox 360 has 6.3V 2200 uF HZ caps. Only the 16V 1500 uF are HN.

I also forgot to mention Intel D915 series motherboards. I think the consensus here is that early-mid 2005 HMs/HNs are still bad. Late 2005 HMs and HNs may be fine though (late 2005 HNs and HZs are what 360 motherboards have).

Well, I have about 10-15 or so 16V 1500 uF KZJ caps. Of those, 3 bulged in storage. I also have about 40 or so same size and capacity (16V 1500 uF) Nichicon HN caps, of which about 1/2 to 1/3 are with 2005 date codes. From these, I had 0 (zero) bulge in storage or test bad.

Nevermind, forget what I said then. I haven't seen that happen with those KZJs yet but knowing KZJ it isn't impossible. Although I take it the ones that bulged in storage did so after being desoldered. goodpsusearch had an A0213 (Akita, Japan) dated 1000uF 10V Rubycon MBZ bulge in storage after being desoldered from a Dell Optiplex GX260 motherboard last year, after sitting in storage for four years.

I also recently found a bunch of 1500uF 16V Sanyo/Suncon WFs from Xbox 360 Falcon and Jasper motherboards that bulged in storage (they were not desoldered). So yeah, KZJs and WFs are bad news even in the VRM input of Xbox 360 motherboards. Late 2005+ HNs, MCZs, and FLs should be fine though (they don't die in storage AFAIK). What were the date codes on those KZJs that bulged in storage?

That said, you're still right that this doesn't say much. But overall, I've seen many more failed KZJ than HN with 2005 datecode.

No, you're right, it does say something. Although HN certainly doesn't have a spotless track record but early HN (and HZ) datasheets rated those series for -40C rather than -25C (this was updated in August 2004 or thereabouts). So that suggests a change in the electrolytic chemistry. HMs were always rated for -40C.

Always glad to have you as my personal spell-checker . If I don't get the series wrong, I'll get the capacity wrong.
Yes, 680 uF is correct.

I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all. I just have this urge to correct misinformation, but I guess I'm not really any better what with my penchant for hijacking threads.

You know, my signature and slogan should be (and I'm surprised no one has called me out for this more often): "Classic Wester547... staying on-topic with a SINGLE sentence! "