Originally Posted by mushroomboy
Considering max recorded output is 550w, add the 140 for a CPU, that's already scaled to ~700w. Your correct that a 750 would power it, but then your starting to cut it closer and closer to the peak assuming that's a PSU with the ability to run close to it's rated load without dips or issues. You would be running it at over 95% load, maybe not all the time but if you did find a game that would max the card (god forbid) you would definitely be pulling quite a draw.
What's that max power draw? What's that, it's nearly double the 690? For folding I'd say this thing is pretty much useless, you'd be paying double rent by the time the month is up. And yes, I've been exaggerating this entire time. The point is, the card is extremely inefficient with power. They designed it poorly and that shows, even Tom's talks about that in the article conclusion. How they would still give the 690 as the better deal, as it's the most efficient card out. If the 690 consumed the same power as the 7990 this entire post would be different. You would have all the nvidia boys laughing at the fact that it would blow the 7990 out of the water. Honestly you can see which company has been doing this longer.
 Oh, and to prove you didn't read the article. Playing Crysis 2 it consumes almost double (~40%) that of a 7970. So no, it doesn't consume about the same. It's 200 to 356 (7970 first), either read the article or don't reply to people with false information. The only time it's close to efficient is idle with one monitor. When you add 3, it doubles consumption when compared to the 690. Idle, and it's already pulling the power that could go to lighting up 3 bulbs in my house. I could light an entire room with it's idle consumption (3 monitors).
Once again, 90% of the people who buy this card don't care about efficiency, so it's a mute point. If inefficiency was such as big issue, than you could simply say "Well hey, the 7990 is $100 cheaper than the 690" in the first place. To be honest I don't take much into what "Tom" thinks, ever, I think most of his articles are skewed as it is. If I want the most powerful card on the retail market, I'm taking the 7990 every time without a question, power consumption or not. Yeah, I realize GTX 690 takes the cake with power consumption, and I'm very certain people are just dying to show off their power consumption e-peen * end sarcasim*. Not trying to slam the 690 as I'm very partial to both companies, but that's just how it is. Let's not turn this into an architecture debate.
Furthermore, I wasn't referring to doing heavy compute/folding loads. Who the hell buys a 750w power supply for a card of this nature if that's what you're trying to accomplish in the first place? Fact is, people will never hit the max power draw on any game, nor would any game ever require the full amount of power consumption. Otherwise you would have a whole lot of unhappy people here who did in fact purchase a 750w for crossfire 7970's or 7950's. So yes, you were still spreading false information, whether it was your intention or not, by implying the only option was buying a minimum of 800w-1000w psu to run this card. I wouldn't have singled you out if you simply said "800w-1000w minimum for MAX power consumption". Simply put, with an overclocked 7990 in an overclocked system, you only need a quality 750w psu for extreme gaming sessions. I wasn't bringing this up in regards in terms of comparing power consumptions, I was bringing it up in regards to people who are trying figure out if they need to spend more money on a power supply than they really have too.
Also Note: I never said the 7990 consumed the same amount as a single 7970, in referring to the 7990 consumes 40% more than a single 7970 and that "I didn't read" comment, I said it consumes the same as a CROSSFIRE 7970 setup. So please read first before responding..
Unigine 3.0 Heaven Benchmark
15-minute load test
This is what MOST people should worry about, which is the overclocked load of the entire system.