S1lentThund3r

But does it matter? The biggest part is the slower speeds for the home owner, and the fact that other people are using the same router as you, with the security of the router taken out of your hands.

For those wondering about the resolution or aspect ratio, it is for people who want to create and edit 4k (the de-facto standard 3840x2160) but still have menu options above it and the start menu below it without making the video any smaller. You can get 1080p video uncompressed onto a 1200p screen with room above and below for tools.
 
G-Sync is superfluous as this is designed to be for professionals and prosumers who are not looking to play CS:GO competitively or Crysis 3 at full resolution. 

The base model is really quite reasonable when you think about the fact that the base 6c/12t intel at the moment costs $650 here, its $200 cheaper and still provides the same power on a newer chipset

I remember back when I had a Pentium 3 with a Geforce 2 32mb. Computing was so much simpler and so much more complex back then.

I love VGA. I wish to have its babies and form a family of mini-VGA's. 
 
For real though, the picture is far clearer watching content on my 40" TV though VGA @ 1080p than though my HDMI cable. And for years I've used VGA as its a perfectly good standard for anything below 1080p. Its a perfect substitute for most of the cables on anything less than the high res and high refresh rate equipment that is starting to break into mainstream. Only real problem is lack of audio through the cable, but that doesnt matter to most people in most situations. 

I love VGA. I wish to have its babies and form a family of mini-VGA's. 
 
For real though, the picture is far clearer watching content on my 40" TV though VGA @ 1080p than though my HDMI cable. And for years I've used VGA as its a perfectly good standard for anything below 1080p. Its a perfect substitute for most of the cables on anything less than the high res and high refresh rate equipment that is starting to break into mainstream. Only real problem is lack of audio through the cable, but that doesnt matter to most people in most situations. 

I mean how many other tech's have we gone through? We get a new CPU socket for either side every 2 years tops, we get a new GPU generation just as frequently, we've gone through 16, 32 and now 64 bit computing etc. And DirectX has seen all of these. We've just been polishing it a bit. Adding a few new sparkles every year. I mean, I was using DirectX on my Windows 95. With a double digit cpu speed (A 90mhz for those interested (that was fast)). So why wouldnt we get behind moves to show it the door? Its like holding onto my 8800GT and expecting it to ace BF4 on max settings. There comes a time when things just need to be let go to allow the new in.

Mantle is no more a gimmick than DirectX. In fact every PC gamer should be behind a move to get away from mantle, who cares who made it. DirectX is an outdated peice of software that badly needs replacing. Anyone who says that its just a performance booster is thick in the head. It is a new way of doing things, which we need. Its not just PhysX or TressFX or even G-Sync. These things enhance the experience. Mantle makes the experience just as DirectX does. It is a replacement, not a supplement (though it is at this stage due to the continued prevelance of DirectX games).
 
What everyone needs to do, no matter what GPU you run, be it AMD GPU/APU, nVIDIA GPU or intel, is get behind this and force this to be developed and applied accross all platforms.
 
And if the gamer community screams loud enough then the companies will listen and give us what we want. A better gaming experience put on our screens by a modern API, not some relic of the 90's.

I wish people would stop just recommending nVidia products because they have no belief in mantle. Here are the facts. 280x and 770 are evenly matched on average. 290 and 780 are so close that it doesnt matter in alot of games ( and are 100% bona fide overkill for 1080p 60hz, do not buy them for that). 290x and 780ti are the ultra high end and are only useful for 1440/1600p or 144hz 1080p (NOT 4k, we arent that good yet peeps). 780ti does edge out ahead and if you are looking to spend darn near $900 then yes it is preferable to go green team, but everything below is almost pure preference.
 
So here is the simple recommendation. Make a list of the AAA games you most play, find out which team red or green is better optimized for the majority of your games, and then try to find that teams card at a price cheaper than the other teams. For example, a 770 plays your titles better and so you would try to find one for cheaper than a 280x, otherwise there is no real difference for 80% of people out there. Consider if you are planning a monitor upgrade, especially if you feel you have the extra cash to part with for a 1440p or G-Sync (or both) as this may sway you to one side or the other. Don't bother with 4k. Just don't. Its not worth it at the moment unless you are a workstation professional. The only other factor to consider is if you stream a lot and the relief on your CPU that shadowplay provides may also be of benefit. 
 
Basically everything else if irrelevant, both sides have stable drivers that work 98% of the time if you use the WQHL's, both sides have game optimization software and all the rest.

These cards are really the only reccomended cards at the moment plus the 760 and 7770 and 270. The rest of AMD cards are being gobbled by bitcoin miners, which has caused the prices to rise. Since the 290 and 780 are both priced similarly, the 780 is the way to go for gaming since it has the same performance and is quieter/cooler. The same goes for the 770/280X. Now, if we're talking about bitcoin mining, than everything changes. The 280X and 290 are the best bang for your buck from what I've learned. But since the OP is talking about mantle and gaming, the reccomendations change.
I hope this gives the OP a complete picture.

I had a flawless experience iwht my hd 6670. But with my 770 killer gtx 670 PE.
I have had only driver nvidia related bugs, I hope that influences you.
Because I would have houyrs of footage with problems they havent even fixed yet. If I get requests I could make a list.
 
So as of 2-3 years ago. AMd was flawless to me.
Until today and since 2 years ago, nvidia has been FAR away from Premium and flawless experience.

I wish people would stop just recommending nVidia products because they have no belief in mantle. Here are the facts. 280x and 770 are evenly matched on average. 290 and 780 are so close that it doesnt matter in alot of games ( and are 100% bona fide overkill for 1080p 60hz, do not buy them for that). 290x and 780ti are the ultra high end and are only useful for 1440/1600p or 144hz 1080p (NOT 4k, we arent that good yet peeps). 780ti does edge out ahead and if you are looking to spend darn near $900 then yes it is preferable to go green team, but everything below is almost pure preference.
 
So here is the simple recommendation. Make a list of the AAA games you most play, find out which team red or green is better optimized for the majority of your games, and then try to find that teams card at a price cheaper than the other teams. For example, a 770 plays your titles better and so you would try to find one for cheaper than a 280x, otherwise there is no real difference for 80% of people out there. Consider if you are planning a monitor upgrade, especially if you feel you have the extra cash to part with for a 1440p or G-Sync (or both) as this may sway you to one side or the other. Don't bother with 4k. Just don't. Its not worth it at the moment unless you are a workstation professional. The only other factor to consider is if you stream a lot and the relief on your CPU that shadowplay provides may also be of benefit. 
 
Basically everything else if irrelevant, both sides have stable drivers that work 98% of the time if you use the WQHL's, both sides have game optimization software and all the rest.

I wish people would stop just recommending nVidia products because they have no belief in mantle. Here are the facts. 280x and 770 are evenly matched on average. 290 and 780 are so close that it doesnt matter in alot of games ( and are 100% bona fide overkill for 1080p 60hz, do not buy them for that). 290x and 780ti are the ultra high end and are only useful for 1440/1600p or 144hz 1080p (NOT 4k, we arent that good yet peeps). 780ti does edge out ahead and if you are looking to spend darn near $900 then yes it is preferable to go green team, but everything below is almost pure preference.
 
So here is the simple recommendation. Make a list of the AAA games you most play, find out which team red or green is better optimized for the majority of your games, and then try to find that teams card at a price cheaper than the other teams. For example, a 770 plays your titles better and so you would try to find one for cheaper than a 280x, otherwise there is no real difference for 80% of people out there. Consider if you are planning a monitor upgrade, especially if you feel you have the extra cash to part with for a 1440p or G-Sync (or both) as this may sway you to one side or the other. Don't bother with 4k. Just don't. Its not worth it at the moment unless you are a workstation professional. The only other factor to consider is if you stream a lot and the relief on your CPU that shadowplay provides may also be of benefit. 
 
Basically everything else if irrelevant, both sides have stable drivers that work 98% of the time if you use the WQHL's, both sides have game optimization software and all the rest.

Finally some logic

Windforce is hotter and louder. Nuff said. 

Bought a 780 and yet to see PhysX make much of a difference in games. Like ever. Had AMD last gen and simply ran it off my CPU when I really wanted it. Considering turning it off anyway just to get higher framerates (or changing it out for higher AA).

That second sentence is T-Shirt material. 

We're using it as an example of something that can easily do it. I'm more thinking of the future here, the fact that more games will come out with Crysis 3 level of requirements. 

My card with 1GB lags bad when I have a game and CS6 open sometimes depending on optimizations. I don't see why not. Better to have more vram than you need then not enough.

i would say so..
i try not to recommend anybody anything under the 7950 series.. even then i would only just recommend a 760 for 1080p single monitor..
this seems to be the price point for performance 

Sorry for setting off the gfx card debate. 
 
Anything above a 1150 i7 will be heavily bottlenecked by a single 680 in gaming. You will see little to no performance difference between the two. I never hit above 60% CPU on my 8350 with my card which is only a little bit behind the 680.
 
The question then is how much more do you want to pay for workstation style work as this will be the only area where the 8350, 1150 i7 and 2011 i7's have any baring on performance. I would say that your price/performance will get pretty low when you go up to a 2011. If you are not doing large amounts of professional work then the small increase in times between the 1150 and 2011 should not be worth the >$200 in costs. As for future proofing, the 2011 will last you longer but as the 990x proved, its still a short lifespan before the top of the range is down to high-mid range.
 
Overall I would recommend a 1150 i7 as a 2011 would most likely be wasted in all seriousness. The money saved there can be better spent on things like SSD's, better cooling and cases etc. 

I linked that particular test because it involved the same card that the original poster has just upgraded to. As such it is perfect for the discussion as he needs it, as it has his card and the options for SLI. 
Mid-Range cards? If you are referring to the cards in the benchmarks I linked its a 680 (770) and a 7970(280x) which are far from being mid-range cards.  

They have a brick and mortar near me, so its definitely a legitimate site.