JayR

obs isn't really cpu heavy , a typical streaming setup would only have a few layers anyway.

OBS is not that heavy, i'm seing people have no problem with 4 core cpu.
Moar cores is nice to have if you have the budget.
Just don't expect it to be fully utilized.

A 5950X is pretty overkill for streaming but
If you're a recreational video editor, the 5900X will provide a pretty comfortable experience. But if time is money, the 5950X could pay for itself with faster renders.

Here i sit with my mere 1700X (+1060 6GB) And streaming GTA at 1080p 60FPS @ 3500kbps Software-slow encoding.
 
Lol that 5xxxX series will do fine.
 

Alright cool decided to go with
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B08LR145ZY/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Wish I got this one a day ago i would have saved a extra $150 🥲
 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07KGR784M/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
Hopefully my second pick was good. I did do some research on it for a while. 
 
Might get a 4k monitor in the future to see if it's rescale well with the other two.
 
Happy holidays man!

Depends on the GPU... 4k generally works better with 1080p though.
It might. Can't say for certain as I'm a 1080p single-monitor guy right now.

I suggest them because they are VA panels, which have superior contrast. (in a dark room, the difference between black and white on a VA with only HDR400 or less is equivalent to an HDR1000 IPS in any illumination) IPS is really only better for viewing angles and response times, and not by a significant margin.
 
It's all up to you. I'm not holding a gun to your head... Yet...😶
Any time my dude.

It's hard for me to give you advice since the European prices are fairly different from the American ones. What I can tell you is that the scaling issues with Windows are horrible.
 
I use a XPS 13 with a 4K panel and an external dell monitor (1440p) (for for work) but using it as a dual-screen solution just doesn't work. Half of the time apps don't scale properly (back). Resulting in blown up or insanely small text. This can only be solved by a reboot.
 
Most of the time I just boot it on the external display when at the office and reboot it before going portable. Good luck with your search though. 

Not my top pick. My top pick would be a curved VA panel from Samsung. (I prefer the better blacks, and IPS has rather grey blacks in a dark room, kinda like TN)
It requires an external tool, but is easy to do.
He probably didn't download the color profile from MSI's website. (listed as a driver) Most people just plug-and-play their monitor, so most monitors only have the manual for download, but MSI includes color profiles for the monitors. These profiles correct the gamma and slight oversaturation on the monitors. It's also an extremely minor difference if you're not using it for work that requires extreme color accuracy.
$750 ($1500 for 2) for a 1440p monitor that only does 240Hz and HDR600? That's a bit expensive. I'd go for a CHG70 over that any day. (144Hz, but unless you're actually making money in e-sports, there's no real utility going above 120Hz as 99.9% of games will never get that high of refresh rate at 1440p)
 
Considering you're planning on two 1440p monitors, I'd suggest a CRG9 ultrawide. Same resolution as 2x1440p, but lower price, ($1100) and [the significantly better] HDR1000. https://www.newegg.com/matte-black-samsung-crg9-series-c49rg90s-49/p/N82E16824022762 (bonus points for it being in-stock right now)

Most likely, yes.
Unless you're practically mashing your face against the screen, it's going to be hard to tell.
There are only 3 reviews of the monitor, the rest are ratings with no way of knowing if the person rating it actually bought the monitor at all. 2 of the reviews ar 5-eggs, and all of the third's issues would've been solved if he'd downloaded the control software and color profile from MSI's website.

No, it's a hardware tool that you strap to the screen to test the actual output colors, and adjust the screen color profile as needed to get actually correct color output.
No, they are all calibrated from the factory, but calibration fades over time, and designers that need absolute perfect color representation would use the tool to correct the calibration regularly.
Only if you want to both spend more money on the calibration tool, and are in need or want of higher color accuracy. (which if used for gaming, you'll never notice or need the difference)

Correct.

Here's one that will be approximately one half step down from the absolute best RAM you can get, but has the benefit of actually being in stock.
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-64gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820374091
 
If you're wanting to save a few bucks, this is one step down...
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-64gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232914
 
If you're looking to save a little more, this should be very similar to the previous set.
https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-64gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232900

Depends on the specific programs you use, and the workload. It could be anywhere from a +10% boost, to no appreciable performance increase.
Not just because of the lower voltage, but that is a part of it. It's also better chips in general that can handle higher voltages, and run cooler. It's also more stable when overclocked. It even includes having a better PCB that the chips are attached to.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3333-memory-timings-defined-cas-latency-trcd-trp-tras

There’s an LTT video up that explains the ram thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUFWalEf31w

The 3900x and 3950x only differ in the number of cores. The 4000 series is supposed to have an IPC improvement meaning for the same clock speed it will be faster. This will improve the capabilities of the new series especially in single core use scenarios.
If you can't utilize additional cores and the single core performance is your limiting factor, an upgrade to the 4000 series migjt pay off.

Pricings haven't really changed for RTX 2000, particularly the 2080Ti, it's been overpriced since launch, so I wouldn't expect the new cards to be even more expensive, but we obviously don't have any official numbers on that matter.
What does matter is that you will potentially be able to get the performance of a $1100 card in a new $600 card (some rumours suggested that the RTX 3060 will perform better than the 2080Ti, which would make that margin even larger, but these are obviously not confirmed and should be taken with a grain of salt).

In my Dark Base 700 airflow is great and so are temperatures during Prime95. 

If your already getting the best of the best wait for ampere

If you don't have any graphics card now and need to get one I'd say get the 2080S, otherwise, definitely wait until September for Ampere to drop.
Throwing $1100+ on a graphics card now with new ones around the corner wouldn't make any sense, and depending on how well the mid-range RTX 3000 options perform compared to the 2080Ti or other high-end current-gen RTX 2000 cards, you might not even get that great of a resell value out of it.

The extra 4 cores won't be as impactful on your workload compared to a 4900x which is supposed to have higher clocks as well.

Go for the 3900x.
I dont think the 3950x offers enough extra Performance to justify the price in your case.
In gaming / streaming it shouldnt perform any better.
I cant really say much about video editing as i dont do that Kind of stuff.

Ok thanks ;D

Anything that is unreasonably overpriced...
Besides that I normally download something to try it out, and if I like it I buy it. Because I think you should at least like the product before you decide to support the developer/artist.
 
PS: Also punching a kid for being proud to have downloaded something illegally is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard anybody do, if that is even true.

It makes me feel like a bad ass. Batman can't stop this criminal.
 
I only illegally download my music and overpriced software though, haha.