5 ms·
A lot of these are also used for productive purposes. I bought a Threadripper to speed up compile times on my open source project. If I was running a slower CPU
by Pet_Ant 4y ago
A lot of these are also used for productive purposes. I bought a Threadripper to speed up compile times on my open source project. If I was running a slower CPU that's a net loss to society because I'd be less productive. Now, I can afford it and did, but others cannot. It's just wasteful of potential.
- gruez 4y agoRight, but if you can't scrounge up $1000 to pay for a shinny new threadripper, how much productivity was actually lost? Presumably less than $1000, right?
- hajile 4y agoIf developer time is worth just $50/hr, that's just 20 hours to pay for itself. Pugetbench says 448 seconds for the Threadripper 3990 to compile unreal vs 889 seconds for the Ryzen 5950X. That's over 7 minutes saved every compile or just around 170 compiles to pay for itself. If you do just 5-6 compiles per day, that Threadripper pays for itself in just one month (not including any other system costs). Most devs are worth way more than $50/hr and the payback time for them would be much, much shorter than that one month period.
- gruez 4y ago> If developer time is worth just $50/hr, that's just 20 hours to pay for itself. Note that I'm not claiming that a threadripper provides zero value to you. I'm saying that if it's providing value to you, you can easily justify the price, which puts an upper bound at how much productivity can be lost. After all, if you're losing $5000 worth of productivity over not buying a $1000 part, you'd be irrational not to buy it. Therefore, any productivity lost is basically capped at the cost of the part, which admittedly isn't trivial, but isn't some huge loss either.
- postalrat 4y agoMust be nice giving yourself an excuse to get paid to do nothing 30-50 minutes each day.