TShirt_Ninja

I saw a triple ultrawide setup at PAX West this year. I was not impressed in the least. Not only did the game have clear framerate drops even running on top-end hardware, but the extra width really contributed nothing to the gameplay experience while also forcing the player to either sit very far from the screens, to the point where you basically can't use this with a normal desk, or if sitting close to the monitors, you have to turn your head incredibly far side to side. IMO, the ratio of vertical pixels to horizontal pixels is way too low. My advice is to go with a single screen for gaming. If you want something very wide, then go for a single ultrawide display.

You won't be able to do an external GPU solution with the USB-C ports on that laptop, as they are not also Thunderbolt 3 ports, which are required for those external GPU docks. Your second method would probably work if you set it up right, but it's going to be pretty strange, and will require that you play on separate display, as there isn't going to be any way for the external GPU to send the video signal back to the laptop's display.

Get a Vive and make it a VR room.

It would be really useful if you would actually post what you're going to powering with this PSU.

Hardware encoding really has such a light load on the CPU that I don't think it's going to be the deciding factor in this situation. Though if he went with the Ryzen CPU, he could probably start using software encoding (for the better image quality) since those 8 extra threads on the 1600 would be pretty capable of handling that. So I think that's the core decision he needs to make. If he plans to stick with hardware encoding, then there's really no relative difference between the two.

I definitely think an electric sit-stand desk would be worth the investment. I have one both at work and at home, and it's great to spend some time standing every day. I wouldn't want to have a stand-only desk though; it's pretty tough to spend a very long time standing in one place. I have a desk from https://www.autonomous.ai/ which is very affordable as far as electric sit-stand desks go, while still having decent build quality and stability.

You probably want something like two of these. Do you know what kind of display inputs the TVs have? Most likely you'll need proper adapters to adapt the mini-Displayport outs on the GPUs to whatever inputs the TVs have. It may also take a little bit of configuration work, but this is probably the cheapest method to do what you want.

The only other option I've found is this waterblock for the MSI 1070 ITX. It really seems like there aren't a lot of waterblocks out there for small form-factor GPUs.

Zotac is the only company that has made a miniature version of the 1080ti; no one else has made a similarly-sized PCB for it. Unfortunately, that also means that EK doesn't make a full-cover waterblock for it, so your only option for water cooling it would be to use the universal waterblock that covers only the GPU chip itself, and then figure out other cooling for the RAM and power components. Depending on your DYI abilities, that might be feasible. Otherwise, you'll need to go with a different GPU. That waterblock linked up above for the Zotac 1080 mini might be your best bet, or you'll need to look for waterblocks from another company, since EK doesn't appear to have any immediate plans to make waterblocks for any of the small 1080s or even 1070s. As far as I can tell, the reference PCB on the FE is the smallest PCB for which EK currently makes a waterblock.

There isn't a lot of data about it, but it seems like powerline networking has a similar range limitation to ethernet cables (so about 300 feet). Even if it doesn't, it would require that the two buildings be on the same power infrastructure, which is in no way guaranteed without more information from the OP. I also am not super impressed with the reliability of powerline networking in general; I set some up at my parents' house, and the most critical one keeps losing its ability to connect to the other nodes in the network, and the latency isn't all that great. Overall speed is fine - about what's advertised.

Found the LTT episode on this tech.

Also, I just checked, and 500 ft. is a longer distance than the ethernet spec allows for; those cables aren't intended to work at lengths greater than about 380 ft.

I think the OP said running a wire wasn't an option, unfortunately.

The trouble with Google Wifi is that you'd probably need to have multiple relay stations between the two buildings, which would mean needing to be able to power them somehow, which might well violate the need to avoid running cables. Also, I'd imagine it would be a bit difficult to locate several of those units out in whatever terrain is in between the two buildings in such a way that they wouldn't be affected by weather.

If you absolutely cannot run a wire, then you're probably looking at something like this. I haven't done a ton of research on them, so I can't describe exactly how to set it up, but I do know that you need line of sight between the two transmitters (one at your house, one at the trailer). I think the Ubiquiti one I linked is about as fast as you're going to get right now, since the tech hasn't reached gigabit speeds yet, but I would assume 150-300 mbps is good enough for most home applications.