PCGuy_5960

Definitely! Pascal is much better for VR thanks to some small improvements that they made to the architecture

Thanks! That's the plan

An overclocked Maxwell Titan X is better for gaming in DX11, when it is watercooled and overclocked to the max.

If it improves both Maxwell and Pascal, the 1080 will still be faster
Definitely! They are just not as good as a 1080
LOL, me too! AFAIK, Volta will be a beast!

Hahahah true to that, 80Cº - Fan at 82percent.... Jeeeet Engines Reaaddyy

That's true. PS4 and Xbox one have 8 threads and most games use 8 threads....
Battlefield 1 on Ryzen:
Watch_dogs 2 on Ryzen:
 
The problem with Ryzen's gaming performance is not that games can't take advantage of multiple cores. The problem is that games USE multiple cores. Let me explain:
Ryzen is not a "simple" 8 core die, it is a single die with dual quad core CCXs. The latency between cores on different CCXs is very high compared to the latency between cores on the same CCX. (Almost 3x higher). This is from PCPer's article:
So if games become more multithreaded, threads that belong to cores on different CCXs would have to communicate and this would cause performance issues. This issue can be fixed if games are optimized to use up to 8 threads that belong to cores that are on the same CCX, so that the exchange of data between CCXs can be avoided. Either way, Ryzen 7 is not a gaming CPU, even if AMD marketed it as one. It is an amazing CPU for productivity and heavy multitasking and this is what this CPU is meant for.

Get a used 4790K, it costs less than $250 on ebay right now

Get a Praxis Wetbench and turn this PC into a testbench

Coil whine maybe? It is a very common issue with PSUs...

You want this PC for gaming, right? You don't need 8 Cores and 16 threads for gaming. Additionally, Ryzen doesn't perform well in games. If you want the best gaming performance, get the 7700K...

Well let's say that gaming would land at a steady 75%, so yes mainly it would be gaming but I've seen the benchmarks and in most cases there wasn't really a big difference between the 7700K and the 1700X but I've noted your recommendation.

Definitely! It is better than Ryzen and only slightly worse than a 6700K! The 4790K is still an amazing CPU.

That's irrelevant he's gaming at ultrawide 1440p. His bottleneck is always going to be GPU. a 1600, 1700 or even the 1400 are going to be plenty.
It's not even a couple months at this point. They're releasing in April.
 
 

Yeah I'm sort of all over the place with CPU's the naming scheme and everything makes it very hard to differentiate between the great and not so great but I did know that the 4790k was still a great cpu, just didn't know how competitive it still is! 

i7-7700K
Ryzen 7 1700(I still consider it enthusiast grade though.....)

8C/16T CPUs are enthusiast CPUs IMO....

3440x1440 = 4 953 600 pixels
1920x1080 =2 073 600 pixels
2 880 000 more pixels to display. or 138% more pixels

For multicore performance:
Intel => 6950X AMD => 1800X

Yes, but the average consumer doesn't need 8 Cores and 16 Threads
Ryzen CPUs are enthusiast CPUs for consumer prices (to me)

Dunno. It looks really cool though

But not in VR and DX12... Maxwell struggles with both VR and DX12....

BTW, @STRMfrmXMN should be able to help you out a bit more than we can

lmao that it does lol!! does seem like a pretty good idea to use as a test bench though!

Can you believe that this guy managed to build his PC  It's mind boggling!

And let's forget that this will be Windows' fault