2
\$\begingroup\$

enter image description here The motherboard model is G31T-M REV:1.0 . The circuit is for the 4-pin 12v power rail coming from the power supply.

I'm replacing these because they are very bloated, It's quite a miracle that the capacitors are still working xD

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I expect you can replace them but whether it works correctly afterwards is purely dependant on what the circuit is intended to do in the bigger picture. \$\endgroup\$
    – Andy aka
    May 4 '18 at 13:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ www12.mediafire.com/convkey/ba53/… \$\endgroup\$
    – Justin su
    May 4 '18 at 13:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ It would of course be better if you had the exact spec, but yolo, go for it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dampmaskin
    May 4 '18 at 13:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Idk what to do 😂 \$\endgroup\$
    – Justin su
    May 4 '18 at 14:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Are you planning on using 1 x 2200 uF or 3 x 2200 uF? \$\endgroup\$
    – Colin
    May 4 '18 at 14:18
5
\$\begingroup\$

Increasing capacitance within reasonable limits won't cause trouble in a power supply bypassing scenario, which is the case here.

If the caps are in a hot place, make sure you use 105°C rated caps, and not 85°C ones. Note that even at a much lower temp like 50°C, the higher rated cap will last longer.

These look like they're at the input side of the CPU VRM, which means they will handle high currents. Low-ESR caps are required in this position, try caps specified for switching power supplies for example.

Personally I would use these, they're cheap and high quality.

General-purpose aluminium electrolytic caps (the ones that aren't specified for low-ESR) are likely to have too much ESR to use here.

Also check this link, apparently you're not the only customer to have problems with this mobo...

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ The caps are 105°C and it's identical to the caps you mentioned \$\endgroup\$
    – Justin su
    May 4 '18 at 15:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's running a'lot better now and it worked like a charm. 👍 \$\endgroup\$
    – Justin su
    May 4 '18 at 16:42
0
\$\begingroup\$

Generally speaking, other than the physical size of the part being compatible with the board layout, a small percentage larger capacitance used in a circuit like yours should be OK.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ The physical size of the capacitor is exact \$\endgroup\$
    – Justin su
    May 4 '18 at 13:53
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ No, especially for power caps the ESR and ESI is as important too, a lot of caps fail not because their value "shrinks" but because ESR or ESI are too high. \$\endgroup\$
    – PlasmaHH
    May 4 '18 at 13:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PlasmaHH - A good thought in general, but the proposed replacement is only 20% greater than the original, and I'm dubious that this will cause a problem. So long as the replacement is otherwise in the same ballpark for use type (low ESR especially), of course. \$\endgroup\$ May 4 '18 at 14:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @WhatRoughBeast: From the way the OP presents the question it is rather unlikely they pay any attention to that part, so one has to assume that they mean "just any with that value" for which the answer is "no, not just any, must be similar ESR/ESI too" \$\endgroup\$
    – PlasmaHH
    May 4 '18 at 14:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @PlasmaHH - Fair enough. "It's hard to make things foolproof..." \$\endgroup\$ May 4 '18 at 14:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.