Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt
If you don't trust the manufacturer, then how are you going to get that number? Pay for the thing and then test it? Ain't nobody got time for that.
|
Nobody said the manufacturer is lying. He has simply added a safety margin due to who his market is.
One can easily learn what the numbers really are by measuring. So many did that to learn their computers mostly consume around 100 watts. Most computers rarely exceed 200 watts in full load operation. One actually got his gaming computer to consume 400 watts.
What is your desktop power usage while browsing these forums?
Quote:
|
41 watts idle - 109 watts running Prime95
|
Someone blamed the measuring device because numbers did not agree with popular hearsay:
I have proved Kill-A-Watt accuracy .. NOT GOOD.
Quote:
|
at idle I was sitting at 65W and it peaked at 102W booting up.
|
These people obtained real world numbers. And that is the point. They got facts. Whereas most who recommend computer parts only recite popular hearsay. Always take what the majority recommend with a grain of salt. Especially when claims are subjective - not tempered by numbers. Demonstrated by the PSU is why so many myths are so often believed - ie Airborne cures the common cold or Geritol for a longer life.
If that video controller spec is useful, then it cited current (amperes) for each volt. Computer assemblers are told to get a power supply at least twice as large as necessary. A 200 watt computer needs a 400 watt supply. To avoid clogging help lines. Thermaltake may then recommend a 600 watt supply. Then consumers know they need 800 watts.