MajorVegas

For gaming, go with the 6600k. Over clock the crap outta it. Single performance work loads are typically better for gaming.

For gaming, go with the 6600k. Over clock the crap outta it. Single performance work loads are typically better for gaming.

For gaming, go with the 6600k. Over clock the crap outta it. Single performance work loads are typically better for gaming.

For gaming, go with the 6600k. Over clock the crap outta it. Single performance work loads are typically better for gaming.

Depending on the price yeah... If the budget is slim and the swift is a bit cheaper I tend to recommend it.
Despite it being TN it still looks great. Linus had nothing but good things to say about it in his review.
I got one for 600$ used awhile back in perfect condition, and it looks dam close in terms of color and picture quality compared to my pb278q ips monitor.
P. S..
7680x1440p at over 60 fps is going to need another titan x at the very least.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1415441/7680x1440-benchmarks-plus-2-3-4-way-sli-gk110-scaling

That's a pretty sexy case. Wonder when Thermaltake's one comes out. 

I just hope someone buys them so we can see some actual competition on the desktop CPU market.

You're trying to say something about me BSing people. If its about the 2 graphics card choices, check again I said that if there is another card you would get, list it in the comments. If it's about resolution, that's for you to decide, I don't think it matters all that much VRAM has been increasing in most games, I wanted the average opinion on what YOU thought it would be. Resolution is arbitrary in this question
 
or
 
You're saying that I'm BSing people. Telling people that I'm not buying either card for whatever reason (I think I can sympathize with this one but still).

too much VRAM for the 970 xD

Been playing with it all day
 
http://imgur.com/a/FrQpF
 
 
http://i.imgur.com/acOGHSz.jpg

What size is the screen?  I'm at 1440p 27" and very few games actually need AA. With 4k I doubt you would need any AA on a 27-32" screen. Maybe if you have a 40"+ TV you'd want FXAA or 2x MFAA (MSAA).
 
 

 
negative. Titan X will be junk when the Titan Y comes out. Pascal will be a die shrink 2x and HBM VRAM upgrade. I think it's safe to expect a 50% performance increase. 

On some games I can max the settings and play 4k with MSAA 2x and sometimes 4x and still get over 60fps. Like borderlands, metro redux, bioshock infinite, and certain indie games.

Anyone who uses AA on a 4k monitor should be ostracized.

If money isn't an issue I don't see the problem with getting a Titan X. It's still the single best gpu available right now and when games eat up the vram in 4k or multi-monitor 1440p with special texture packs, mods, or antialiasing, the performance won't tank when the game exceeds 6gb or even 8gb of frame buffer. Even when pascal launches I doubt the performance will be that much better than the Titan X. It will be very similar to the jump from Titan Black to Titan X.

Almost 50% more expensive for literally 0 difference in performance difference because of a worry that we might possibly use more vram than what is already considered overkill to begin with.  Smh...

Thats what I did.   Not sorry about it either.   Had the 780 and like everyone else (performance of Titan for less).  I found out how less last November.   VRAM not enough.
 
You can buy a EVGA water cooler for it.
 
http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=400-HY-0990-B1

Not if you watercool the Titan X.

bad gamble man.
 
980 Ti OCs to the same level and even beats a Titan X often. 
You'll need an aftermarket cooling solution on the Titan X to squeeze more performance out of it. 
Next year Pascal will make you 4k jelly and you'll want to upgrade anyways. 

When Pascal comes out next year Maxwell gpus will be obsolete and everyone will upgrade to 4k. Unless you need that 12GB of VRAM right now there is really no point in getting the Titan X. 

So you think that future games will run at ~10 gb VRAM?
 
That's gunna be a while lol. One day I'll boot up my custom PC with a Intel Atom Smasher and a Nvidia/AMD graphics particle accelerator and smile. Mean while the peasants will probably be still playing their x1's and ps4's. 

If I ever have the money, skill, and resources to make the game I'd like to make, 10+
Sadly we'll need quantum CPU using servers to run the online portion of it. Might be a while lol

I would say 5GB will be the max at 1080p, at which point a 980Ti will be running games at 12FPS Ultra.

since you said money is no issue get the 980 Ti. 

5-6 GB for 1440p in 2 years time.
 
i would get a 390X or a HBM Gen 2 card. Preferably from AMD as they will have some real world experience with the HBM tech while Nvidia will A overprice Pascal wildly, and B, not have actual in market experience with how it works.

Yeah... no. The 290x 4GB launched in october 2013, 8 times more ram than the ps3 and Xbox 360. Not counting the system memory, which would be 8GB minimum if you could afford a 290x at launch. 2 Years later, consoles memory technology is on it's last year, we are getting cards with 6 and 8GB memory and come HBM2 we could very well be getting 16GB versions of high end graphics cards.