No it only assumes that the Op's system's power requirements will not exceed it. Since test system is configured with high end components to ensure none will bottleneck the card being tested, they will usually consume more power than the average system If Op's includes additional power hungry components they need to be identified, But this is no different than your assumption of adding in some standard overhad. And I too allow a factor for headroom.
It makes more sense when explained like that, for sure. Like I said, we all go about it in different ways, and as long as the end result is the same (or at the very least correct) its fine.
I don't understand your comment. Please explain what you mean. I am looking at the peak power consumption of the whole system and reporting peak load usage for the whole system.
Thats kind of answered by your comments in the first quote in your reply to me.
But for the sake of clarity; I did not feel the way you calculated the load using a test system was representative of the OP's system.
Systems don't have to be "identical". I already answered that above but I think relying on actual computations made by experts is more reliable than anecdotal guestimates by one or two users.
Not they don't, but using a test system is not representative of the OP's system. I agree with what your saying though, but there are plenty of places online I use to check GPU load, like
here for instance.
I fully agree which is why I never recommend cheap PSUs and already stated that I would not buy the one OP has.
The Corsair unit is in the same category as the OP's original choice, if not worse. I'm being critical of your component choice, not making a personal insult. That is well within the forum rules.
What did you mean above then when you said "it's not a good way of calculating the whole power consumption system wide"
Well the test system will differ from another users computer. For example, the number of discs, lighting, fans, etc.
The most accurate way without question is to attach it to a power meter and find out the wattage and current draw. This however is beyond the scope of the average user.
Frankly I am surprised that you never condemned his abuse and instead chose to attack the victim when I choose to defend myself.
For two simple reasons:
1. You retaliated in this and another thread. Your both back and forth between each other, and to be perfectly frank with you, you are responding back at him, making you both as bad as each other. If you feel something is offensive report it, then a member of the team can deal with it appropriately.
2. While HK's choice of words were questionable, he was not personal insulting you in a manner I deem to be agressive, or personally insulting. It definitely could have been worded better, but he wasn't swearing, and I saw no derogatory comments made of an offensive nature. This however is as always, open to personal interpretation, and if you feel it warrants it, report the posts and I'll let another member of the team deal with it.
HK has also apologised for offending you, so I consider it dealt with.
Lets be very clear; I did not attack you. I mearly gave my opinion based on what I read, based on my experiences. The fact it appears one-sided is unintentional, assuming you even feel that's the case? I assume that is how you view it given the fact you think I'm "attacking" you.
I simply gave my opinions on your comments which is again, well within forum rules. If you don't like it, so be it, but to suggest I am attacking you is far fetched at best. I'm allowed to give my opinion just like any other member as long as I adhere to the forum rules.