Help with capacitors (NICHICON I think)

[leham]

Fantastic update

So I was messing around with the card and I noticed another ceramic cap had broken off the board.. In the power section :0 slapped a new one in (and fixed its torn trace).. I think it has something to do with the power management IC....

Badda bing Badda BOOM it passed the benchmark TWICE 60FPS at stock OC speeds
Played some dying light (I've been dying to play this game) ahhh all is good

I ordered some new polymer caps and await their arrival

Thanks for all the help guys you saved me $160 dollary doo's 

 

[jlmoon]

No, they're 560 uF and 820uF.   

In this case, the short notation ( ## x 10^# ) is not used.

For the ones marked with LF, you can download the datasheet and see there how to read the markings, at the bottom of the first page : ftp://helpedia.com/pub/temp/datasheets/capacitors/Nichicon/Polymer/e-lf.pdf

Anyway, they're polymer capacitors, from a reliable and quality company, so it's unlikely they're causing any problems to the device installed on.

Just a note:  To the OP, if you're replacing those caps with 560 uF and 820 uF .. you need to go here and check your data

Those are 56uF and 82 uF caps.. pretty small cap to be almost 1000uF. 
A designation of 561 and 821 on the tops would constitute values of 560uF and 820uF

Just a FYI!

http://nichicon-us.com/english/products/pdfs/e-lf.pdf

[Monkeh]

No, they're 560 uF and 820uF.   

In this case, the short notation ( ## x 10^# ) is not used.

For the ones marked with LF, you can download the datasheet and see there how to read the markings, at the bottom of the first page : ftp://helpedia.com/pub/temp/datasheets/capacitors/Nichicon/Polymer/e-lf.pdf

Anyway, they're polymer capacitors, from a reliable and quality company, so it's unlikely they're causing any problems to the device installed on.

Just a note:  To the OP, if you're replacing those caps with 560 uF and 820 uF .. you need to go here and check your data

Those are 56uF and 82 uF caps.. pretty small cap to be almost 1000uF. 
A designation of 561 and 821 on the tops would constitute values of 560uF and 820uF

Just a FYI!

http://nichicon-us.com/english/products/pdfs/e-lf.pdf

Those are 2.5V caps, not 25V.

Sorry, but they are 560uF and 820uF and the datasheet you posted backs that.

[jlmoon]

No, they're 560 uF and 820uF.   

In this case, the short notation ( ## x 10^# ) is not used.

For the ones marked with LF, you can download the datasheet and see there how to read the markings, at the bottom of the first page : ftp://helpedia.com/pub/temp/datasheets/capacitors/Nichicon/Polymer/e-lf.pdf

Anyway, they're polymer capacitors, from a reliable and quality company, so it's unlikely they're causing any problems to the device installed on.

Just a note:  To the OP, if you're replacing those caps with 560 uF and 820 uF .. you need to go here and check your data

Those are 56uF and 82 uF caps.. pretty small cap to be almost 1000uF. 
A designation of 561 and 821 on the tops would constitute values of 560uF and 820uF

Just a FYI!

http://nichicon-us.com/english/products/pdfs/e-lf.pdf

Those are 2.5V caps, not 25V.

Sorry, but they are 560uF and 820uF and the datasheet you posted backs that.

Guess I am thinking a 561 would reflect a 560uF.. or 821 the same..

With this numbering convention, are they leaving the 0 (3rd digit) off or the < 100 uF parts?

[Monkeh]

Guess I am thinking a 561 would reflect a 560uF.. or 821 the same..

With this numbering convention, are they leaving the 0 (3rd digit) off or the < 100 uF parts?

You are indeed thinking that, but electrolytic caps are not often marked that way.

They specify the value in uF, plain and simple. 1500uF parts would say.. 1500. 56uF would be 56.

[jlmoon]

Guess I am thinking a 561 would reflect a 560uF.. or 821 the same..

With this numbering convention, are they leaving the 0 (3rd digit) off or the < 100 uF parts?

You are indeed thinking that, but electrolytic caps are not often marked that way.

They specify the value in uF, plain and simple. 1500uF parts would say.. 1500. 56uF would be 56.

Yes, do understand.  Thank you for clearing that up.  I was getting crossed up with the EIA 96, 3 digit numbering system and 10^exp values
 
Thank you