DDrawer

What about taking advantage of the Microcenter bundle with free RAM? I'd be looking at $310 for 7700x + the same 32GB FlareX 6000 RAM. My store also has an open box ASRock X670E Pro RS Motherboard for $182 I could pair with it for $492 total if getting PCIe5 is something I should go for. OR I could grab a Gigabyte B650 AORUS Elite AX for $203 for a total of $513. Are any of those options better value than the $550 13700k bundle? Is AM5 compatibility worth factoring in vs 13700k lg1700 socket stopping this gen?

Okay I get your meaning now. Is that still the case? I can't seem to find pricing as good for these bundles currently. Which of the 3 would be the best buy, or would you recommend another configuration of part?

Yes for the Z790-A Prime. Not sure what you mean by full fat saving.

I currently have an Intel 8700k, ASUS z370 Motherboard, and 32GB DDR4 3200, and I'm looking to upgrade. Seems like my best choice is between three Microcenter bundles: 13700k, Asus Z790, DDR5 6000 32GB for $550 OR 7700X, MSI B650, DDR5 6000 32GB for $450. OR 7900x, ASUS B650, DDR5 6000 32GB bundle for $550. Leaning towards the AMD bundle since it's cheaper, should be similar performance, and potentially a cheaper upgrade path in the future. I only need performance for gaming. Outside of gaming I only use the PC for online browsing and MS office. So I don't think I would need the 7900x, but the motherboard included in the bundle does have pci5 where the one in the 7700x bundle does not. Also has more USB ports which I was looking for (currently have 7 + 1 c, was hoping for a couple more to get rid of my need for a hub). Not sure if those are worth the $100.

Anyone heard of anything new with CES around the corner?

I don't know why so many people have the misconception that unless you can pin your FPS to match your refresh rate at all times, then there is no point in having that refresh rate. Sure maybe the 3080 isn't going to break 144fps at 4k on modern titles, but that doesn't mean you aren't benefitting from having a 144hz monitor. Especially now that variable refresh rates are a thing. 100 FPS on a 144hz monitor is better than 100 FPS on a 60hz monitor any day of the week. Plus why would you spend $800 on a 3080 and $4-600 on a 1440p 144hz or 240hz monitor today ($1200-1400 total investment), only to turn around and buy a Nvidia 5080 3 years from now at lets say $800 which can now easily do 144 fps 4k + a 4k 144hz monitor at lets say 600-800 at that time. That puts your 3 year cost at $2600 - $3000. OR you can buy the $800 3080 now + a 4k 144hz monitor (~$1500) enjoy your beautiful images for 3 years, then grab a 5080 and be right around that same 3 year cost of $3k. Only reason I can justify it is if you are a competitive gamer and need every ounce of that high refresh rate, but at that point why not just buy a 360hz 1080 panel?

Assuming you are looking to keep this monitor for multiped video cards down the line (keeping the monitor 5+ years), I don't see why either of those wouldn't be a good choice. Sure, maybe the cards out now can't hit 144hz in most games at 4k ultra, but they can with settings turned down. Also, it doesn't matter if it can't peg 144hz, you still benefit from higher refresh rate assuming you are able to push over 60 frames. Finally, maybe you can't peg 144hz right now on ultra, but next generation of GPU's or the next will, and unless you plan on upgrading your monitor every time you make a GPU purchase to perfectly align with the capability of the GPU, then I don't see what's wrong with over buying the monitor a little bit now to avoid making a second monitor purchase in the future. As for 144hz 4k vs 260hz 1440p that's going to be personal preference depending on what types of games you play. I don't play competitive e-sports type games so I just want the crispest most beautiful image I can get. 4k is where I would go. But do keep in mind that unless you are running a top tier GPU from this generation you may be struggling to get 60 frames without turning settings down on certain games (the vast average of games will easily sit in the 60-100 frames area).

Well that depends on a lot of settings first of all, but also, you don't need to be locked at 144 frames in order to take advantage of a refresh rate higher than 60hz. No point in buying a 4k 60hz panel right now as the latest GPU's can easily push passed that.

Yeah I wouldn't be looking to spend more that $1500. I kind of figured that anything new coming out soon would be way outside the budget, so I might as well pull the trigger on the CG437K. I'm holding out until it hits that $999 price it was at back in august. I think even with it's compromises (though I think they are minimal if I set my expectation to stay at 120hz vs 144), at $999 it will be pretty hard to beat.

Does anyone know if there are any upcoming 32 inch or larger 4k high refresh monitors coming out any time soon? I've got my eye on the Acer Predator CG437K, but I'm curious if more options are on the radar since this one is about a year old at this point. Looking for something for my desk so the 43 inch models are probably about as big as I could go.

Yeah, I've been looking at the acer Predator CG437K. $1000 4k, 120hz, hdr1000. I'm okay with that price. Over $1000 is a bit out of my budget though. Basically, I'm just worried about the PPI being lesser than the 1440p monitor I have right now since I'd be increasing the screen size by a good amount while also increasing the resolution.

Unfortunately nobody makes a monitor that is the same size as my current monitor with a higher resolution and above 60hz. Unless you go to the 43 inchers.

Any other thoughts? Anyone know of any 32ish inch 4k monitors with above 60hz coming out soon?

Seems like linus' point revolves more around refresh rate though. He is saying 4k is dumb at the expense of refresh rate. But what if the monitors were both 120hz one being bigger and 4k, and the other being smaller and 1440p. In my case, Id actually be getting a higher refresh rate no matter what since my current monitor is a 60hz (overclock to 80) monitor. My problem is the 4k market right now is either 4k 120hz+ at 27 inch, or 4k 120hz+ at 43inch. 27 inch being smaller than my current ultrawide so i'd feel a loss of screen realestate and that ultrawide goodness, 43 inches having about the same ppi so I question if I would be getting good value from my 4k vs 1440p.

I currently have a Dell Ultrawide u3417w (1440p 34inch ultrawide). With the launch of the 3000 series GPU's, I'm thinking it's time to bump up to 4k gaming. High refresh rate isn't really important to me as I'm not into esports games and I've never had about 60hz anyway, but I'd like to make the jump above 60hz this go around. It seems the only options currently available for monitors with 4k, above 60hz refresh rate, that are above the standard 27 inch size (I feel like 27 will feel small compared to what I'm used to with the ultrawide) are 43 inches. Now, my question. The monitor I have has a pixel per inch of 109, and a 43 inch 4k monitor would have a ppi of 103. Will I basically be making a lateral move here in that case? Just trading more screen space for about the same clarity? My current viewing distance for my 34 inch monitor is about 22 inches, but there is space to move it back. I could get about 34 inches of viewing distance for the 43 inch if I put it on the back of my desk.