You don't like generalities, do you?
Not when they are wrong. And if you bothered to look and actually read and understood what is being said, except for those last specific examples in my clearly futile attempt to get you to open your eyes and mind and see the truth, I have been talking in generalities all along.
I like how you ignore my points
No one here is ignoring your points. What we (and note no one here is taking your side and claiming you are correct) have done is repeatedly shown you where you are wrong. Multiple posters have come in to point out the facts, with links to examples. You have provided none. Now if you are claiming, with no supporting evidence, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong, then my apologies.
So, show us one white paper, one study, one technical report that shows a higher efficiency 80 PLUS certification automatically implies the PSU will have:
1. Better regulation,
2. Tighter voltage tolerances,
3. Better ripple suppression,
4. Better hold-up time compliance,
5. Better intake surge protection,
6. Better longevity...
...JUST BECAUSE it is rated Platinum, for example, instead of Gold or Bronze. Please, show us!
Note those are the criteria for a better PSU -
NOT a higher price tag!
Regarding efficiency, I upgraded to Titanium because I realised that my general PC usage was low load, where my unit's efficiency was low and not within a range defined by 80-plus gold certification; and upgrading to Titanium dropped my typical energy consumption essentially in half.
This is nonsense. As EVERYONE can easily see
here, the difference at 50% load between Gold and Titanium is a mere 4%. All your anecdotal example tells me, if really accurate, is you obviously did NOT have the PSU properly sized for the typical load presented by your computer components to ensure the PSU is operating at the desired ~50% load level the majority of the time. Your example tells me YOU FAILED to select the right size PSU. Sadly, this a common mistake as most inexperienced, ill-informed users believe (1) they need a bigger PSU than they really do and (2) that a bigger PSU is always better. Both are typically wrong.
Can easily soak up less than a couple decades in northern European countries
Less than a "couple decades"?
While technically, my comment of "many years" fits the category of less than 20 years, some realism should come into play here. By far the vast majority of users, including those reading this, do not keep their current computers 10 years, let alone more than that. Many upgrade every 5 - 7 years, or even less and expect, and see their PSUs supporting them that full length of time.
~150 W peak load but anyway
I say again, people need to do the math. Don't guess - you will be wrong.
150W at Gold's 90% efficiency means the PSU is pulling from the wall 167W (167 x .9 = 150.3 watts). That same 150W load supported by a Titanium's 94% efficiency means that supply is pulling from the wall ~160W.
So between the Gold and the typically much more expensive Titanium, a 150W load consumes a mere 7W more with the Gold. This is about the same as a child's traditional nightlight.
I note 7W goes into 1kW 142.857 times!!!! How much does a kilowatt hour cost in your country? In Denmark, it is $0.53 for 1kWh. In the Czech Republic, it is just $0.37.
Unless you are folding 24/7, no way your computer is pulling 150W, 24 hours in a day. And frankly, watching YouTube is not demanding. Playing games certainly can be, but even high demand games do NOT max out demands the full time they are running, and players are not playing 24/7.
Even heavy PC users average less than 6 hours of PC use every day and of those 6 hours, the PC is closer to idle most of the time rather than maxed out.
Are there exceptions? Of course, but exceptions don't make the rule - hence my use of generalities.
So I say again, it typically would take MANY YEARS to make up the difference in costs between a quality gold and similarly spec'ed Titanium.
