After doing a little self-research, I've found out that at a distance of approximately three feet, I can't discern the difference between 720 and 1080 dpi videos streaming on a 22" monitor. So I'm going to install Garuda to my desktop, which has a 128 GB SSD for the OS & applications and a 1 TB 7200 rpm HDD used for data storage. I already have Garuda dr460nized running on a laptop which has only one drive w/BTRFS. I'll put KDE Barebones on this machine.
Garuda in BTRFS will be on the SSD on the desktop machine, but I was in a quandary about the filesystem to use for the 1 TB HDD which will contain only data. I remembered reading a while back that BTFRS was slower than EXT4, but I don't experience that on my laptop because, I believe, the optimizations implemented by Garuda's developers have perhaps overcome any noticeable differences in daily hobbyist use, running mainly applications.
So I did a little digging and reading, and the latest article on Phoronix delves into real world testing of BTRFS, EXT4, and other filesytems on kernel 5.8, which is the latest testing article I could find. It appears, in conclusion, that BTRFS is slower on application launches, maybe slightly ahead of EXT4 overall, and perhaps a bit better in read/writes, the bits I was most interested in reading, since we're talking about a 7,200 rpm spinner for my data drive, which is decent for a desktop machine.
So my conclusion is it probably doesn't make any "real" difference, since my data changes are few and won't impact video streaming, reading the news, or haunting you folks over the internet. So I'm going to format this HDD in BTRFS, just for the sake of consistency and because BTRFS is new-to-me, I've been researching it, and want to learn more about it.
I'll report back if my in-use conclusions differ.