DudeWazap

I made a bit of a sidegrade. Ended up picking up a RX 6750 XT for $500CAD and sold my 1080ti for $330CAD. In some less optimized games (mostly unreal engine) there isn't a noticeable difference, however with SAM + FSR I saw Cyberpunk go from 45fps at 1440p ultra with the 1080ti to 65 fps with the RX 6750 XT and with SAM enabled and FSR 2.1 at Quality I got 75FPS. So, while on paper the RX 6750 XT is around 20% faster, in practice because it's a new card well optimized and new games can see gains of 40-50% more performance than the 1080ti. Same thing in Forza Horizon 5 as well, 95fps with the 1080ti, over 120fps with the 6750XT with SAM on. I would have loved to buy a RTX 3070 ti or RX 6800 but they make no sense with current prices with those cards being around $800-$1000CAD for only 15% more performance than the RX 6750 XT but 50%+ more money. 
 
Anyways I'm happy with the upgrade and it's nice to get 20%+ more performance for a few hundred dollars. 

I have a 1080ti and play at 1440p on a Gysnc Monitor. I have three matter of fact but use 1 for gaming only. Anyway went abit off topic there. The reason why i didnt buy the 3000 series was due to the shortage at the time plus the gap in preformance between my 1080ti and the 3080 or 3080ti. I didnt warrant it enough at the time for me. So i waited for the 4000 series which when came,the 4090 was the only card worth getting becuase we all no what has happened to the 4080 cards etc etc and the 4070ti basically being a 4060 super in sleep clothing. I didnt want to spend 2000 pounds (live in the uk) on a card. Plus at the time with the power cable burnsouts with the 4090 i didnt want to take a chance. But since that is all over now. I am waiting for the 5000 series even if i brought the 5080 or 5080ti should techinically be faster than the 4090 at launch. The way i see it if i am throw down alot of money on a GPU might as well get my moneys worth in terms of preformance from my 1080ti to the 5000 card. 
 
So saying that if you can wait and have some patience WAIT 2 or 3 more years for the 5000 series to come about. Trust me you might not thank me now but you will 2 years from now.

Ah okay so 3060ti as a place holder till 40 series to upgrade to a 4080 or 4080ti

Might as well just get a mx500 and have the advantage the qvo has of having dram PLUS faster storage. Should be the same price as a QVO from samsung.

I've never been on Reddit but now that you told me about your experiences with it I will never go their. Plus I love this forum a lot. ^_^

What are the current temps? With a 212 Evo, they should be very low with plenty of headroom already.
SW3's are much quieter than SP120's but so are TrueQuiets.
The top fin of the 212 Evo is easily masked off for painting. Example here:
 

It's easier to find Dark Rock 3 benchmarks, since it's been out for a while.
 
Here's both of them compared: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7522/cooler-master-masterair-maker-8-cpu-review/index6.html
 
Note that the temperature results are very close with the cooler master edging out, but the be quiet produces a little less noise when the fans spin up.
 
Now all reviews of the new Dark Rock 4 say it performs better than the previous version, so I'd say that one is probably the better one right now. Pretty overkill for an i5 though.....

yea well i dont know how fast your 4770k is compared to my old 2600k or my new 8700k, those are things reviewers dont show. "gaming benchmark with reasonable settings for the game". Despite most of them doesnt really show reasonable CPU benchmarks anyway and only showing GPU-Bound games... 
 
But i can tell you my CSGO FPS have rised from what average 250-270fps with lowest drops to 150fps to 500-700fps with lowest drops to 450fps.
On the csgo Benchmark from the workshops its averaging 500FPS now. 

I don't think that's a bad drop. Aslong as it isn't noticeable you know? I'd wait till something Hella crazy comes out in the future like zen 2 or Intel i11 ?. Even though it's just a 4th gen CPU. It's not like it's terrible. If you keep having this mindset, you'll forget that PC gaming is about having fun rather than feeling crap because you're 5 fps below your refresh rate. Try turning off the v-sync and see what kind of performance you're actually getting. But if you're using a 1080ti it will definitely bottleneck it due to its old technology, limited cache and inefficiency compared to say an i5 8600k. We were all impressed by the 7700k and that was everyone's dream processor. But now the i5 8600k basically beats it. Anyways if you really want the biggest and the best, go for it it's your money. But I'd say to wait and enjoy your game rather than be unimpressed from your performance

Cannon Lake are mobile processors only, for laptops and what not, Intel always releases a much smaller initial line up on the new lithography for final polishing of the process before going all in with mainstream desktop chips, like Broadwell 14nm and Skylake 14nm, pretty much nobody has an i7 5775C but every one had an i7 6700k.
 
Ice Lake is the first 10nm desktop line up which will feature the i7 9700k that you're thinking with 8 cores, you'll need a z390 motherboard which isn't released yet and the latest news about suggested release date of Q1 2019.

Im personally doing that. Sounds like you dont really need the upgrade right now, so I would advice you to wait.

I would wait for the new Intel 9th gen CPUs because they may actually have 8 cores and 16 threads at a mainstream price.

i upgraded from a 2600k, FPS difference is times two in some titles, f.e. csgo, counterstrike, wow... still using the same GPU. 
Not that the FPS in the top right corner matters, but its also much less stuttery overall a much smoother experience... and ive overclocked both..
 
Soo i dont regret upgrading from a 2600k to a 8700k even if it only would be for gaming, the real gaming experience on my old 2600k was horrible compared to the 8700k. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Google doesn't build. The reason they are in so few markets is because they have only been going where there is ample dark fiber. Fiber lines laid by other infrastructure providers or ISPs that are currently unused and that they can cheaply lease. They then get the customers to help subsidize pushing fiber to the home or the node for their internet. I especially like how if you pay for the hardware getting pushed to your house you can get free internet, slower, but free. And if you want full speed you just start paying. Getting as many people as possible to pony up for the "last mile" infrastructure makes it easier for everyone to benefit from it.
 
If and when Google starts running their own fiber backbone you will see competition really heat up as Google has the resources needed to push into contested and densely populated areas without worrying about AT&T or Comcast being butt-hurt. 
 
More competition is always better. And getting the government further and further from the battlefield will let US benefit from it rather than the connected few.

They are an internet first company, so they will push for internet to very accessible. Where as AT&T and Spectrum will continually gimp their service here or there to encourage cable tv.

From my understanding ISP get massive tax breaks which are supposed to be used to upgrade infrastructure which they don't unless forced to.
The only reason AT&T offers Fiber now is because Google started to build here.
 
competition is always good for the consumer.

From my understanding ISP get massive tax breaks which are supposed to be used to upgrade infrastructure which they don't unless forced to.
The only reason AT&T offers Fiber now is because Google started to build here.
 
competition is always good for the consumer.

From my understanding ISP get massive tax breaks which are supposed to be used to upgrade infrastructure which they don't unless forced to.
The only reason AT&T offers Fiber now is because Google started to build here.
 
competition is always good for the consumer.

see if you know someone who can put up a big pole and do this 
 

From my understanding ISP get massive tax breaks which are supposed to be used to upgrade infrastructure which they don't unless forced to.
The only reason AT&T offers Fiber now is because Google started to build here.
 
competition is always good for the consumer.

From my understanding ISP get massive tax breaks which are supposed to be used to upgrade infrastructure which they don't unless forced to.
The only reason AT&T offers Fiber now is because Google started to build here.
 
competition is always good for the consumer.

http://scrawford.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/The-communications-crisis-in-America-final.pdf

Sign me the hell up.

It's not just your state, back in the 90s the top ISPs carved out their areas and they all agreed to not compete with each other in their areas. They also had laws passed that prevented competition in their areas. One town wanted to build their own ISP for their citizens but it was against the law for the town's government to compete with the ISPs already there. It's sick.
 
EDIT: Link for those interested: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

Yeah it's based on what ISPs are in your area and they adjust their prices accordingly.