LooneyJuice

That's funny actually. I remarked recently on the fact that the TUF boards look "understated" now in comparison. I mean, truth be told, the RGB malarkey is sadly here to stay, which saddens me personally, (not to kink-shame anyone) but at least I know that its proliferation means cheaper implementation. So even that won't be an excuse for this stuff in due course (even now in some cases). I mean, it's no excuse either way, but just to make a point. Regarding sheer negligence though, when it comes to something that impacts efficiency and, as some would argue, component lifespan in favor of looks, I can just wish infinite RMAs upon them. RMA on you, RMA on yo' cow, RMA on yo' whole family.
 
If that's the case, I can only really chalk this up to turning tricks to milk an admittedly diminished market. I do like to look at my boards on occasion, but I can put up with some brown every now and then for the greater good.

Well, from what I gathered (and the followup videos) after the issues regarding methodology, there were still overheating issues with the VRM. Mostly what was rectified was EPS connector temp, but VRM temp-induced throttling conditions were still replicated after the colab with Tim Logan from OC3D. Now, the usual argument can be made about how most people won't even touch those loads, and it's already been made here. On the other hand, though, I'm of the impression that if you can somehow induce these loads by operating a CPU to its max capacity, even on an overclock (one which doesn't appear to be unsustainable for the long term), and without hardware mods, you are obligated to be able to accommodate it.

Oh I totally understand. No one I think ever said it was faulty, especially within the envelope a lot of users would stick to (non delidded chip, within standard current spec etc). But if it's really something which concerns extreme overclockers, on an extreme overclocking board, then that's a bit of a miss on ASUS' part I guess. That being said, Roman went out of his way to eliminate safeguards and draw as much current as he could, among other things. It really is as much a first world problem as first world problems can be, but for the time being, I don't see a massive issue seeing that it was a relatively minor change on a board which will also be asked to accommodate 12+ core parts coming out later (which judging by what we have already, may tax the board proper).
 
Like I said, granted, it was a typical internet knee-jerk reaction, but if it produces an objectively better product in the meantime, I won't say no.

And so it begins. Yet again.
 
 

Wow, truly amazing. Marvelous work, ASUS. You've restored my faith in English.
 
 
To be fair that is an alright response though rather than sweep it under the X299 release rug.

You could definitely live with a 1600 if you had to, and if budget is really that tight. Having said that, you are using stuff that will generally leverage the extra threads on a 1700. Especially overclocked, the 1700 would essentially be the most amount of well-priced performance you can get for the platform. It depends on whether you feel the time saved on your work and the extra power you can leverage is worth stretching your budget/saving a bit more.
 
The way I see it, it also eliminates the issue of needing an upgrade on the same platform if indeed you find yourself lacking in power. If this is your work, it's more of an investment than a hobby purchase.

You are going from 4 to 6 and one gen up, but I still think it may be a tad steep if that 4930k is used.

The study really only shows coloration but not causation.  While 'Video games leads to living at home and being unemployed' is a sexy conclusion that gets you headlines, the inverse, 'Unemployment leads to living at home and playing video games' yields only a 'No, duh.' in response.

And it's not Night Theme friendly either! *grumble grumble grumble*

if it aint broken, fix it 'till it is
 
- just kidding

I'd get a Nitro+. Sapphire makes awesome AMD GPUs, from what I've heard. 

Spreading the word of our Lord and Savior Battlefront II again I see 

I ain't complaining! The more the merrier. Speaking of, not wanting to derail the thread, I need to get on that list of mods ASAP. I wouldn't mind actually playing, or joining up one of these days if you're up for it.

It's the Canadian equivalent of Svalbard, where vast stores of maple syrup are kept in a hermetically sealed chamber, sequestered from the impending apocalypse.
 
 
...no?

3 years locked in. If it dies 3 years from now you will become the proud owner of an i5-4570 

Regardless of SKU though, they're all arriving at broadly the same ceiling. Generally the consensus seems to be that the 1800X will essentially guarantee 4GHz operation without you having to tweak much, ergo, paying a premium for not having to really mess with it. Other than that, 3.9-4.1 isn't exactly a groundbreaking difference, and would be within variance observed for a single SKU, let alone the entire line. Binning is surely involved, but I believe mainly in order to hit TDP targets more than anything.
 
Edit: Edited phrasing for some inaccuracy

What do you have against a Horse Stable?

I was bud.  I don't even reply to certain things anymore.  Arguing with some folks about common shit stuff is exhausting.  

This was some pretty low-hanging fruit when it came to starting this whole argument. Hell, I would even have appreciated the grammatical nuances had they been worded in a slightly less confrontational manner. But of course this had to somehow devolve into a battle of wits and quips over a thread pertaining to the supposed poor overclocking performance of a 1700. Would have been cool to dissipate the ontological misunderstanding early on and maybe share some cool info in the meantime, but of course not .

If you're in any doubt about driver issues simply use DDU to completely nuke your driver install and start from scratch (DDU over yonder: https://www.wagnardsoft.com/ ). If you appear to be having the same issues, you could always roll back to an older driver package, they are listed after searching here: http://www.nvidia.com/Download/Find.aspx?lang=en-us
 
If all else fails, make sure taxing background applications aren't running (overly aggressive AV software etc), set a per-game profile in NV Control Panel with "Power Management" set to "Prefer Max Performance" to eliminate throttling under low load situations. Shouldn't do all that much, but I think it's a pretty good idea to generally do that for games.
 
Additionally, you have mentioned 2 games that can be very temperamental at times. GTAV is generally alright offline, but GTAO has a bit more variability. ARMA 3 on the other hand has no chill, and no baseline framerate whatsoever. It depends on the number of assets on the screen and whatever the game wants to do. Doesn't matter if you're running SLI 1080ti with a 7900X at 4.9, it will find a place to drop the framerate. The best you can do is either unlock your framerate and use software to cap your framerate (like MSI Afterburner) or something like @Zando Bob mentioned and use Fast Sync to eliminate the stutters from halving your framerate when the game can't maintain the target framerate. Although one caveat is that Fast Sync should only be tested on a per-game basis because I've encountered instances where it can cause some stutters, but generally, it's some pretty cool tech. 
 
And no, for 99.5% of situations, you don't need a CPU upgrade, you should be totally fine. GTAV may occasionally kiss the ceiling of an i5, but newer ones should be alright generally. ARMA 3 on the other hand is... Well, ARMA 3. I love the game, and it got better post-64bit, but man, it really doesn't give a crap about specs.
 
Edited for clarity

The way I see it, you can convey your thoughts concisely enough, Mage can convey his thoughts concisely enough, so your combined input could amount to way more than The Battle of Etymology - 2017.

One of my all time favorite analogies.  

Yes, it's unstable the moment you took that sledge to it. Build a wall that won't succumb to a sledgehammer, and it should remain stable when you decide to do so. That is where you and I differ. I settle for much lower clocks and voltages(more importantly, current), and much more brutal levels of stress, so that I feel "comfortable" with my current state of stability in less stressful situations. While I know I will eventually be unstable, it should (in theory) take longer for me to reach that state, given the level of abuse I was able to take.
 
Rather than skirt the edge of stability with extremely high clocks, I prefer to create a large buffer, so that by the time instability finds me, I will no longer need that product to be stable in the first place. This all goes back to a conversation I had with @done12many2 about "compromising". In this context, we are compromising potential performance, for stability. 

Well, there's also done12many2 and leadeater. Prior to that, I enjoyed talking to Thread212.
 
Fun fact, I had a friend that literally said lol instead of laughing.
Yeah, but The Battle of Etymology was fun, plus there isn't much chance for our combined input to amount to anything more than picture wars and the proverbial slap fight.
That's where Mage and I differ. I see stability as being largely black and white, but having a grey area where stability is affected by the maltreatment intended not to use, but to destroy. Where stability is only compromised if you so actively desire, and are going beyond stress testing it.
 
Or, another way to put it. Is a wall unstable if I trash it with a sledgehammer, when otherwise it is steadfast?