too many variables to be an accurate measure
Not really mate, it's just based on the assumption that you know how to grow and can fill a foot print. There are a lot of variables but they're taken out of the equation by that.
Nobody's gonna base what a light is capable of by taking into consideration that some folk just can't grow very well, live in the Arctic, have cannabalistic cats or think you can grow a pound in a 3L pot.
I've been perpetual (By that I mean random and chaotic lol) for a while now so don't have any recent solid numbers but the first 2 years I had only 2 x 240w blurples. Didn't matter what I done. 1 auto, 6 autos, 1 photo, 4 photos, NFT Res, 10L fabrics, 20L bafrics. I tried everything mate and always got 470-620g.
1-1.3 gpw every time from 10 year old blurples.
Didnt make a difference how many plants I used, how long they vegged for, how much light I used for veg, the numbers were always the same.
Surprisingly enough the best yield was from a single auto too.
The only constant in the grow room was the lights and the fact that I filled the footprint before they hit bloom. Everything else was completely different every time as I was experimenting to find what works best .
If I ever figure it out I'll let you know lol.
Old leds and cheap HPS or CMH should net you a gram per watt.
Top end LEDs , gativa level HPS and the hortilux style CMH lights can all get double that in the right hands.
Not my hands sadly cos I'm a cheapo and still stuck with my stone age tech but I've seen it done enough times in enough methods to know it's about right.
Yes it's asuming your grow goes at least 90% perfect with the other 10% being no more than minor blips and your plants being pretty well trained for optimum light penetration but again, Not the lights fault if any of that isn't upto scratch.