Jey R.

you know whats overprice, "premium" ISP that exist to hunt you down.

Well everyone think that getting more ram makes computer generally faster and that's the solution of slowness.

Yes, yes, and yes, I'll get the 4790k. I mean I can buy it for a big $90 less off the reference price, that for me a ice breaker.

Aren't games starting to be multi threaded? Wouldn't this mean that having more cores would be effectively better for gaming?
 
So even if in the event that for the 4790k the price of the i7 dips below lets say 250? Would you even consider shelling out that extra $50 for lets say more cores and arguably more OC? i5's start at 3.5 and like 3.7 turbo? 3.8? Dont remember but i7 is 4.0 base and 4.4 turbo. I understand that theres no such thing as future proofing but if its really in that 50 range wouldnt it be better? also reference to your Direct 12, more threaded cores means that a i7 would perform better or would the i5's cores still be enough?
 

it probably could be oced that high, maybe even more ...

Watch this.

 
Humans don't see in fps,so comparing it to fps is not realistic.

The vram doesn't stack up when gpu are in sli. they share their linked memory frequency.

congrats

XTU is generally my suggestion as it's free. The AIDA64 versions are all downloadable as trials, however if you plan on taking a good deal of time to OC, possibly ending up with multiple stable benches for different reasons, XTU has the longevity as it never expires. I like the GUI of AIDA more in terms of categorized available information. XTU displays roughly the same info, but you have to change some settings and they're not tabulated like in AIDA.
 
When it comes to providing public advice, especially to people new to OCing, I can't in good faith recommend something that I know could potentially cause fatal problems if someone makes a mistake. If someone created a thread called "help me figure out my max temp OC -what software?" I would rec. P95/IBT as long as they had adequate cooling and knew what they were doing. Those synth. benchmarks just make more sense in that situation, and simulate worst case scenarios.

It's quite good. Have some neat features

Sup peps. If i were to get a ps2 to usb adapter what would i need to do in order to be able to play games using the PS2 controller. Thanks

For PCIe Gen 3 8x is fine. (as of now and maybe for 1-3 years)

That's a very good question. Hopefully soon or by black Friday.

If you are using a single card or primary card for d3 performance then a dedicated physx card might give you substantial little performance with applications enhanced with physx. Maybe also more cudas. Here is a thread of an overview.
http://www.overclock.net/t/914370/the-physx-benchmarking-thread

The whole console gaming industry is a bottleneck, and now it is potentially bottlenecking games production and quality.

Guys, come on please... Nor only he wanted it for gaming but also for more performance, more features, and more new stuff . If he can afford it and wants to go with an x99, just try to help him on what he is actually asking for for existence sake. If he wants x99 then go by that. He didn't give two choice but that he wants to upgrade on a new platform.
Why are many people so negative about people's personal decision. Just because people are going to game shouldn't be a reason to disregard the x99. It's all people preferred. If you CAN afford it, then by all means you can enjoy. People shouldn't be butt hurted because the decision they have made based on their wants.
Of course If people give their opinion about different options and with a tight budget then it's reasonable to give out the best convenient answer based on the user. But if someone wants something and can afford it there is no problem with that as well...
(no offense meant btw)

Everyone doesn't share your opinion buddy. So I find it really disrespectful to pity someone based on their own opinion or satisfaction. And then saying they don't know better. Please don't do that. Some people like cod some people don't. Same goes for every bf title. Nobody is wrong. As long as people are having fun leave them be.

Correct. My i7 920 is still giving it's all in all today's application. Only thing is I have to overclock to compensate. But in terms of use performance it's still up there.
The thing is, most developers are still coding and building by the least common denominator which is two cores.

Many of You are getting it wrong... If you go by your logics you are just beating yourself with your own lack of understanding.
Nvidia deserves praise for this very good launch.

Well fair enough but I meant the 5xxx series.

1. Our API sucks for multiple cores.
2. When it doesn't suck (DX 12/Mantle/new OpenGL) games are going to be made for the player base. AKA don't expect to need more than an I5 on the vast majority of games (next gen console games are locked to 6 SLOW 1.6-1.7ghz AMD cores not 8).
3. If you stream a lot and or render and game get an I7. If you just game get an I5. If you are doing work where those cores can actually be used, then consider a massive core/thread chip. Otherwise it will just be sitting there doing nothing. 
 
When would these massive core/thread chips make sense? If you are throwing enough GPU power/lanes at it that you cannot achieve on a lower platform and they are also an INSANELY cheap price/performance chip for WORK type stuff. Things like building a Hackintosh, for PEANUTS compared to a real Mac. Otherwise they are just bragging rights and a complete waste, especially if not also throwing insane GPU power at it, and if you don't achieve a high enough clock with out current crappy API's, then you just might end up being slower than an I5 K on a high clock in a game.
 
Upgrading to a 6 core/12 thread chip will do nothing for those 2 780ti's. You are playing a CPU bottlenecked game, on a horrible API (DX 10/11) that is only using 2 cores well. The 4770k you have will probably be overkill once our API's are not garbage. Save your money for Direct X 12/OpenGL 5.x? Gpu's which should prob have games made for them in 2-3 years. The 4770k should still be fine.  You could have 24 cores and the 780 ti's you have would still be bottlenecked on our current API. 

With the new consoles raising the bar on the lowest common denominator, games will be more highly threaded soon, we should see some of that this year, and more the years to come. IMO the argument that the i5 is all you need for gaming on a new build today only holds water if your only concerned about playing stuff that's already out, or upgrade very often., if you plan on getting 4 years or more out of the CPU, I'd go i7. 

Going from a 2600k to a 4770k is a waste of time and money. The 4770k doesn't offer any distinguishable performances increases over a 2600k besides when running synthetic benchmarks and even then the increases in performance are minimal. 
 
If you have a 2600k @ 4.4-4.8GHz it should easily carry you through until Skylake.
 
Wait until Skylake to upgrade. 

Simple... Are you satisfied with the performance of the applications with the current CPU....??? If yes, do not upgrade.. Else go ahead.. It will be worth it.. Or better still wait for DDR 4... You will get your max...

Very good and interesting point. This alone is a must for overclcoking .