> I struggle with the gaming hardware ROI, when I see how things become obsolete. E.g. my work bought me a Titan-X in 2015 for numerical/image processing work. Ten years later my Ryzen 7840u had nearly the same GFLOPs,
10 years is an eternity in computer hardware. The idea that you should be able to get 7+ years from your hardware is a more recent thing. Imagine comparing the 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 you could get in 2002 with the 66 Mhz 486 that was state-of-the-art in 1993.
It used to be that processor speeds were literally doubling every ~18 months. The computer you bought to run Windows 95 would have choked on Windows XP 6 years later.
Hardware ROI has gotten better in terms of how long you can use a system. Just look at how many people on HN talk about using 10 year old hardware for both productivity and gaming. I've got a 5090, sure, but that's mainly because of wanting to play MS Flight Simulator 2024 and Cyberpunk 2077 with all the details cranked in 4K at 240 fps, and wanting enough VRAM to do local models. If I was okay with lower detail settings in 1080p at 60 fps, I could get by with even a 9 year old 1080 Ti.
Meanwhile, imagine trying to use a computer from 1992 in 2001 as Windows XP is dropping.
EDIT:
> I know I would enjoy immersive VR. But I don't hink I would use it often enough to justify all that dedicated gear and the computer strong enough to drive it.
It takes surprisingly little to enjoy VR. I think most games are written for the Quest 3 which isn't all that powerful, and then ported to PC with the same graphical fidelity. When I first got a VR headset, I was on a GTX 1070 and it played Beat Saber at the 90 fps that my headset did just fine.