Zalman ZM750-EBT: synchronous golden platform from Sirtec

Important addendum

There is one more thing I consider worth mentioning. After the debacle with the GVM units, Zalman asked me not to publish a review before I even began testing. I should make clear that I have no prejudices against Zalman, despite all their poorly-performing units I reviewed previously (LE, GS, GVM – to be honest, some were really utter crap). But I actually believed this time around that this one would finally be their one good performer, as we had a good experience with this platform before with other brands (Silverstone, SilentiumPC), which I mentioned right at the start of the preview. So I went ahead and reviewed it anyways, despite their request not to.

Dealing with such managers has actually become something of a sport, as I recently received another similarly unreasonable request from different brand. (Though more polite and with some reasoning why they want it). This time it was their demanding I first provide a sample of my results, and, if the unit proved to perform inadequately, (the classification of which was to their discretion, of course), they reserved the right to forbid me from publishing the results. What is this supposed to mean exactly? In my reviews, I lay it out and give everybody the opportunity to examine my testing methodology in advance. And there are also already tens of my other previously published reviews available, so they already know what to expect. Then it is left to the reader to determine the quality of the product, or of the review for that matter. And if any brand or manufacturer isn’t sure about my results, I would gladly provide them with some private testing under their NDA terms to show them exactly how their product performs (for a fee of course). But let me be clear: when a sample is provided for review, there is no turning back! I though this would be naturally obvious to everybody, but it seems as though I have to make this point explicit.

Also, if anybody was to express concern to me over my testing methodology, I would very much be willing to explain it to them, or have them explain to me their side. But their statements must be based on reasonable fact and the process must consist of mutual cooperation in finding the cause of the problem. Not just strong-arming and false accusations of unreasonable things (as I have already experienced with Zalman).

During the review process, a Zalman representative constantly repeated to me that they did not want me to publish this review. Unlike with the GVM unit, this unit had consistently bad results in some tests, and this was widespread amongst reviewers with almost completely different test equipment. (Note: At JonnyGURU they found a different problem with the ZM700-GVM they tested, as their unit’s weak point had something to do with voltage regulation. So while that’s different than the high ripple I experienced, their issue also threw the unit out of ATX spec. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions). The results of the ZM-750EBT were that bad that I really felt it necessary to warn customers despite Zalman’s requests not to. When I pointed this out to Zalman, they suddenly informed me that a new revision had been released, and that I, along with Aris from Tom’s got the old revision. And the newer revision is already supposed to be on the market. This took them three months of back-and-forth to finally mention this to me?

So Zalman basically implied that they knew they were sending us the old version which was defective, yet they sent it anyway, but neglected to mention anything until now. Strange coincidence. I needed some time to somehow process this information. I decided to be fair. Somebody over there might just have mistakenly sent us the older revision after all, right? So I offered to scrap these results if Zalman were to send me the new revision for testing. I contacted them regarding this twice, even offering to return this first unit to their local distributor or service center (as it would cost a small fortune to send this all the way back to Korea) just so that they wouldn’t assume that I was trying to get a second free unit. I waited two and a half weeks, but I got absolutely no response from them. My impression is that Zalman wanted this entire ordeal to just blow over, but I am not intent to let this happen. So to sum this up:

Towards the end of the year 2015, Zalman provided me and Aris Mpitziopoulos (of Tom’s) a sample of their ZM750-EBT unit. After Tom’s review came out (which I was not aware of at that time) showing this unit to be clearly bad, I then contacted Zalman with the information I am starting my work on it. They immediately demanded that I do not review the unit, their intent being of course to stop a consensus from being formed that this model is flawed (as would be the case if a second independent source confirmed Aris’ results at Tom’s). Then, all of the sudden, after three months of having the unit and slowly working on it, including careful analysis and trying to find the root of the strange behavior, I was informed that we supposedly received an “older revision” and that there was already a new one on the market. I responded to them that going with my reputation of being an honest PSU reviewer, I couldn’t just scrap the entire review, especially since the preview had already been published. But I made them an offer to provide me with this supposedly “new” revision. To this day (almost three weeks) I have still received zero response, not even that they would consider it. And as a result, this review has been published with the original hardware I received, as I think it is clear Zalman has no intention whatsoever on their part of sending me this new revision, and there is really no point in keeping these results from the public any longer.

So now it is up to you, the customers, to decide whether you believe that Zalman really has new and improved units on the market. Or, would you rather be cautious and go with proven information (from two independent sources) and see that a flawed revision of this product was or is being sold and you have no certainty as to what you’ll receive if you buy the ZM750-EBT.  My offer still stands, and whenever Zalman would like any of their other units reviewed – including whichever revision of this ZM750-EBT model – I am more than willing to accept one. It will be examined objectively, as all units are: if I find it is a good unit that performs very well, I will say so and maybe even give the unit one or more of our awards. If I find it to be flawed in some manner, I will say it’s flawed. It is as simple as that, by the very nature of objectivity. And in my personal opinion, I don’t think I’ll ever receive any more official samples from Zalman ever again. Once again, I think that in itself says something, but please feel free to draw your own conclusions, my dear reader.

Lastly, I would like to conclude with this statement: If Zalman feels the need to respond with any kind of official statement, I am more than willing to publish their response on this site so you readers can see both points of view.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8