Originally Posted by crmaris
the final rating is based, in a significant degree, on the overall performance of the PSU, which can be clearly seen in the performance rating graph, where the PSU takes the sixth place with minimal difference from the three units above it. The performance rating score is based on the numbers/data I get from the tests and according to them the unit deserved this score. Simply as that.
Also I don't think that a review which lists seven disadvantages can be called a biased one (if you are referring to mine of course).
Now who needs such an expensive/powerful PSU, this is another question. Someone else could argue who needs a Ferrari, or four 680 GTX, or an SR-2 main etc. All people don't have the same needs/beliefs so there will be users willing to spend money on a PSU. Considering the price of high-end VGAs, mainboards, CPUs, ddr I don't think that high-end PSUs are so expensive especially if you consider their lifespan.
I didnt call your review biased. However, all the little EVGA fanbois are going to "ooh and ahh" over this overpriced/hyped product which will lead some very biased reviews. And before anyone thinks I am an EVGA hater, Ive owned a few EVGA cards starting with an 8800GTX back in the day and I still look strongly at them for Nvidia products and possibly for some motherboards.
And yes, $450 is still too much even in regard to the potential longevity a PSU might have. I run a Corsair HX1000 and its still more than enough to get the job done for 95% of the PC enthusiast market, and it cost me about $225 when I bought it.