Ummm, no, sorry but that is no longer true. MANY years ago, that was correct. And it still is for basic power supplies that are used in applications where the load stays relatively constant. And it may still be for el-cheapo supreme, budget, generic, no-name PSUs we constantly remind users to avoid.The savings is negligible... Either one, with the current proposed build will not come close to it's efficiency because the Wattage rating is much higher than what the system will draw, at least at the moment... PSUs will not reach peak efficiency until after 70% load in most cases. If you are only loading the PSU at 50% to 60% you are going to see reduced efficiency...
Since computer loads are not constant the very purpose of 80 PLUS Certifications is to ensure efficient operation over a variety of loads and NOT just at 70% utilization. This is no easy task for electrical engineers designing power supplies because as you suggest, PSUs tend to have one peak efficiency point. So to achieve a high and "flat" or "linear" efficiency rating, an 80+ Certified PSU must be of good design and use better quality (tighter tolerances) parts. This is how even Rosewill - often chided for making lousy PSUs, is getting good reviews with their with 80+ Certified PSUs - as seen here.
This is why, with a good PSU it does no harm (other than to your purchase budget) to buy way too big of a PSU - because it will still remain efficient, even when barely tasked, 50% tasked, or maxed out. If the computer needs 300W and the PSUs are equally rated at 85% efficiency, each PSU will draw from the wall ~353W (353 x .85 = 300.05) whether the PSU is rated at 550W or 1000W. That extra 53 is wasted in the form of heat felt at the back of the PSU. So obviously the more efficient the PSU, the fewer watts in the form of heat will be wasted.
And while the 2 or 3% advantage of the Gold over the Silver is a small amount, that still adds up over "years" and as I noted, will cost "slightly less" to operate than a less efficient PSU. Whether that is negligible or not would depend on your other household electricity use.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "quite a bit more". If you are looking at just the price of the CPU, $50 (if that!) may seem like quite a bit more. But if looking at the price of the whole computer, the difference between $1749 vs $1799 is not so bad.Price/Performance is the concern at this pont, and the Intel products are quite a bit more $$$ than the AMD equivalents.
If you look at the AMD and Intels on this Newegg page, you will see 95 to 125W listed for most of the AMDs and 65 - 77W for most Intels. The biggest Intel is only 95W. If costs are your concern and you will be owning the computer for several years, get an Intel. Over the life of the CPU, its lower operating costs will more than pay for the difference.
I said before "with notable exceptions" and certainly Intel has some extreme exceptions with $1000+ CPUs that crank out 130W! :eek4: I am not sure their purpose other than bragging rights for someone with lots more money than me.
Anthony N said:GZ has a point, true these machines will never probably peak the power supplies.
You did not put the graph headings in there. The column headings are 20%, 50%, and 100% loads. So that graph is showing how those PSUs are staying just +/- 1.5% around the averages of 86.5 and 88.5% respectively. Those are amazing tolerances over a very wide ranging load! Clearly not just one peak at 70% utilization.
And I agree 750W is more than you need, but that is not a bad thing, and 750W is not overkill. In fact, it will allow the PSU to loaf around most of the time, and that means the PSU's cooling will (hopefully) be able to toggle back the fan speed and generate less noise.
Just remember, that means for every 100W pulled from the wall, only 75W is getting delivered to the computer. That means if your motherboard, CPU, RAM, graphics, drives, and fans all need 300W, your PSU must pull from the wall 400W (400W x .75 = 300W). That's the same as having a 100W light bulb burning in the sunlight.Even then at 75% efficiency that's good enough for me.