7 ms·

Nice setup, no doubt, but it's a bit of the "more money than I know what to do with" setup. I've set up mine as following 1. just get one ultra wide. I've had

Nice setup, no doubt, but it's a bit of the "more money than I know what to do with" setup. I've set up mine as following 1. just get one ultra wide. I've had 3 or 4 monitors before. his setup with another monitor on either end strikes me as borderline insane/gratuitous. plus then you can consider different graphics cards. 2. mic: blue yeti pro 3. webcam: just my Android smartphone with droidcam installed. With blu-tack and having a bunch of three prong powerpoint plastic safety things for my toddler, I've rigged them up as the mounts/tripods. 4. logitech Master 3 mouse 5. mechanical keyboard 5. computer I haven't upgraded for almost 10 years (this is likely the year), but as hinted in the post, AMD seems obviously the way to go right now. 6. seat: I've actually got a kneeling chair because of limited space. I don't mind it but I agree that chair is a necessary expense. 7. desk: actually a custom cabinetry job off the side of my bedroom: possibly a spot where I've one upped him. I think my setup will soon be approaching his in terms of practical capability, but probably cost 4 to 5 digits less...

chrismorgan 6y ago
I think two of the items will have a particularly significant impact. The camera and lens will yield a vastly superior result, much more visually pleasing. If you’re capturing video for public consumption, it’s well worthwhile considering. (Concerning the camera body: Troy speaks of the Sony α6400, but the α6100 will produce identical results at a somewhat lower price; the main differences are that the α6100 lacks colour grading profiles—something only useful if you do post-processing—and has a plastic body and an inferior screen and viewfinder.) The computer: ten years is a rather long time in desktop CPU performance. Per https://www.cpubenchmark.net/year-on-year.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/year-on-year.html, the average desktop CPU is now more than 5× as fast as the average 2010 one. That rate seems roughly right for high-end consumer CPUs, though once you go up to your Threadripper SKUs it jumps up to 7.5–10× the best of then ’cos you’ve got so many cores, though at a somewhat higher price. And that’s just CPU—storage is waaaaay more than 5× faster; if you are still on a ten year old hard disk drive, updating to a solid state drive alone will increase task performance for many things far more than fivefold; make it NVMe with a new PC and some things you do may genuinely be more than a hundred times as fast.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  Per your chart, single-thread performance has been basically flat since 2012. There's also negligible difference between SATA and NVME SSDs for regular desktop work (there are many videos demonstrating this). I have a six-year-old computer (i5-4670k) and there isn't really much tempting me to upgrade. I can even still run contemporary games on high settings at 1440p (after upgrading GPU to a GTX 1060). The only thing that might eventually clinch it is that DDR3 RAM is very expensive at larger sizes, and it would be nice to have 64 or 128 GB for some workloads (requiring upgrading CPU + mobo to support DDR4).
Reelin 6y ago
> plus then you can consider different graphics cards I can't speak for Nvidia but modern midrange AMD cards support 6 4K monitors (you'll typically need a DisplayPort MST hub).

chrismorgan 6y ago

I think two of the items will have a particularly significant impact. The camera and lens will yield a vastly superior result, much more visually pleasing. If you’re capturing video for public consumption, it’s well worthwhile considering. (Concerning the camera body: Troy speaks of the Sony α6400, but the α6100 will produce identical results at a somewhat lower price; the main differences are that the α6100 lacks colour grading profiles—something only useful if you do post-processing—and has a plastic body and an inferior screen and viewfinder.) The computer: ten years is a rather long time in desktop CPU performance. Per https://www.cpubenchmark.net/year-on-year.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/year-on-year.html, the average desktop CPU is now more than 5× as fast as the average 2010 one. That rate seems roughly right for high-end consumer CPUs, though once you go up to your Threadripper SKUs it jumps up to 7.5–10× the best of then ’cos you’ve got so many cores, though at a somewhat higher price. And that’s just CPU—storage is waaaaay more than 5× faster; if you are still on a ten year old hard disk drive, updating to a solid state drive alone will increase task performance for many things far more than fivefold; make it NVMe with a new PC and some things you do may genuinely be more than a hundred times as fast.

ahelwer 6y ago
Per your chart, single-thread performance has been basically flat since 2012. There's also negligible difference between SATA and NVME SSDs for regular desktop work (there are many videos demonstrating this). I have a six-year-old computer (i5-4670k) and there isn't really much tempting me to upgrade. I can even still run contemporary games on high settings at 1440p (after upgrading GPU to a GTX 1060). The only thing that might eventually clinch it is that DDR3 RAM is very expensive at larger sizes, and it would be nice to have 64 or 128 GB for some workloads (requiring upgrading CPU + mobo to support DDR4).

Reelin 6y ago

> plus then you can consider different graphics cards I can't speak for Nvidia but modern midrange AMD cards support 6 4K monitors (you'll typically need a DisplayPort MST hub).