i thought i should give a bit of context here.
most good psus are able to out live a pc build under 24/7 use, some able to last 10 years.
where i live power costs 11 cents per kwatt. it should be 9 like my state average, but whatever, i wont go into that further here.
now with 11 watts difference, over the coarse of 1 year under 24/7 use, that comes out to about 10$ and out national average is also 11.2 cents, so rounding down to 11 is appropriate.
now here are some numbers, based on estamates.
11 watts - 10$ a year
22 watts - 20$ a year
33 watts - 30$ a year
and lets go with a pc thats built right lasts 4 years, and is used for 5 (waiting on parts to be released and such)
base/4year/5year
10/40/50
20/80/100
30/120/150
basically you have to look at the long run, and anticipate a mid cycle upgrade, such as new gpu, with 50-100 more watts headroom.
lets also assume that you turn the pc off at night, some people do, but leave it on all other times. even at half the cost, on the gameing, and mid range, its more cost effective to buy the better psu, the highend though, used a 750 watt Corsair, there should be a 550 or 600~ watt one that would be cheaper and better fit in line with the other psus tested.
more to the point. we needs a toms chart for psus, right now we have a efficiantcy chart, but what we need is a build chart.
one that takes the psus, and puts them in a standard pc enviorment, like the ones here, and measures the watts used.
than gives us a baseline like this one is 100% than how much more the ones above use in %, than in numbers next to it, and than figuring the annual power cost for the extra watts they use, and find out which ones really the best for your builds, assuming a 4 year build cycle with a 5 year use, like i did above.
i honestly think that could result in an interesting benchmark.