If I can go by this leaked info, then wait a bit, 1080TI is apparently released on 21.12.2016. https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2877/geforce-gtx-1080-ti

Thanks for the link, I'll look into that 🙂 Edit: That 1080ti might handle games "slightly" better than my spankin' new GTS 450 :bang: 🤓

That's cool. I was just wondering if it's gonna be some massive breakthough but I guess with that marginal performance increase and price I'm good for a while as you guys mentioned.

Yeah, basically if you felt the need to wait longer for a CPU, you might as well wait for Zen regardless of whether you get it or not, since it would at the very least lower prices or get Intel to release something more competitive.

As far as GPU I'm waiting for my cash stack to go up a little bit and hopefully I'll get a GTX 1080 ....... or should I wait for a GTX 1080ti ?!

So far I haven't heard any rumors of a 1080Ti being released. Personally, I don't see it happening. The 1080 is already stupidly expensive and creating a Ti would end up outperforming the Titan while being at a slightly lower price point. In a marketing perspective, it makes no sense. A 1080Ti would also fit in a performance bracket that doesn't exist. In other words, the 1080 right now will comfortably play just about anything you want in 2K resolutions. From what I've seen, it can't seem to play any modern games at 4K (with max details). Any extra performance Nvidia can squeeze out of the chip would likely only cover 3K resolutions, which don't exist. It really comes down to what kind of display you have. For example if you're still using 1080p, a GTX 1080 is just a waste of money.

Yeah, basically if you felt the need to wait longer for a CPU, you might as well wait for Zen regardless of whether you get it or not, since it would at the very least lower prices or get Intel to release something more competitive. So far I haven't heard any rumors of a 1080Ti being released. Personally, I don't see it happening. The 1080 is already stupidly expensive and creating a Ti would end up outperforming the Titan while being at a slightly lower price point. In a marketing perspective, it makes no sense. A 1080Ti would also fit in a performance bracket that doesn't exist. In other words, the 1080 right now will comfortably play just about anything you want in 2K resolutions. From what I've seen, it can't seem to play any modern games at 4K (with max details). Any extra performance Nvidia can squeeze out of the chip would likely only cover 3K resolutions, which don't exist. It really comes down to what kind of display you have. For example if you're still using 1080p, a GTX 1080 is just a waste of money.

If Techpowerup is saying December 21st, I'm inclined to believe it. Wizzard (Techpowerup) is not known for spreading FUD (unlike some other websites that shall remain nameless). Although I do agree with you, it will occupy a fairly unnecessary bracket and likely still be very expensive (especially from a dollar/performance perspective). The thing is that regardless of that, people will still queue up in droves to purchase it, and that is why I won't be surprised if it turns out to be true.

@leefuji Do not wait for Ti. Rather, keep an eye on the Christmas/New Year discounts and buy yourself a good (Asus or MSI) 1080, and you'll be just fine...

if you're still using 1080p, a GTX 1080 is just a waste of money.

Not really. Heard of DRS? 🙄 Plus, games like Siege that are crappy coded will allow for higher settings as well. My 1070@2ghz wont even do 1440p with AA... Regarding the ti, ppl said that for 780/980 as well and Nv still released a ti. Doubt it will be different this time. For Skylake, i will pass in favor of zen or 5820, which will either perform better (zen @8/16) or will allow for (better) ocing, which is questionable on the 2066 cpus.

Basin Falls? More like Basin Fails https://m.popkey.co/f7f4f0/1VRKL.gif

@schmidtbag Switching from GTS450 to GTX 1080 surely cannot be a "waste of money", regardless of the monitor's resolution. The new card is much stronger in rendering the photo/video material - it is not just the gaming it can be used for... As for playing games at 1080p, just set any modern game at it's max graphics quality (with all filters turned on) and try to run it with GTS450. If you get 30 to 35 fps, consider yourself lucky. Than try the same with the GTX 1080, and you''l get 60, 70 or more fps, and that's a whole world of difference. And the new card fits better into the DX12 system, too.

Cant you guys get back to the topic?

Nice...If it has good performance I will upgrade my PC..Hope I still get high resell value with my Motherboard and Processor..

I expect my current CPU to last through one, maybe two GPU upgrades in the coming years easily, before I even have to think about replacing it. There's still no game out there that can put proper load onto 8 cores at 4,4 GHz.

Let me guess, there's going to be little to no performance increase and a huge price increase? Seriously reconsidering my hobbies after the local prices have nearly doubled the last few years.

Some people act like they must buy new CPU every month or so. I remember buying 2500K for about 220 Eur and now the newest equivalent 6600K cost 260 Eur. Yeah price increased a bit, but that's also due to inflation, Euro going to crapper and so on. It would be awesome if price stayed the same but it's not how world works, and with Intel you get what you pay for.

That's what I was thinking. Motherboards are doing less than ever now with many controllers moving to the CPU. Why do the motherboard prices keep going up?

seems mobo maker been making less mobo nowdays because sales not as good as past years in mass production lower quantity = higher prices

Let me guess, there's going to be little to no performance increase and a huge price increase? Seriously reconsidering my hobbies after the local prices have nearly doubled the last few years.

many said performance increase will be little but to be fair, there no benchmark for skylake-x so far said if it like consumer line broadwell vs skylake which is little performance improvement, that leaving more cores in skylake-x the whole cpu now, is about power efficiency even microsoft make win10 run on arm its possible arm going to replace x86 soon... like smartphone replace desktop pc for daily (internet) use

Some people act like they must buy new CPU every month or so. I remember buying 2500K for about 220 Eur and now the newest equivalent 6600K cost 260 Eur. Yeah price increased a bit, but that's also due to inflation, Euro going to crapper and so on. It would be awesome if price stayed the same but it's not how world works, and with Intel you get what you pay for.

220.00 --> 260.00 Euro is an 18% price increase over ~4 years. 1000.00 --> $1700.00 USD is a 70% price increase in under 2 years. That's just unbridled greed and nothing to do with inflation.

220.00 --> 260.00 Euro is an 18% price increase over ~4 years. 1000.00 --> $1700.00 USD is a 70% price increase in under 2 years. That's just unbridled greed and nothing to do with inflation.

Yes what they did with 6950X was outrageous, but that's top of the line enthusiast segment where "anything goes". It sucks but that's how it is when you want the best of the best. I bought 5820K 2 years ago, it was only slightly more expensive than mainstream quad core CPU at the time, so with Intel you can find some good deals too and in the end you get what you pay for. This CPU will last me many more years.

I think people are forgetting that the 6950X has 10 physical cores. It is, to my knowledge, the only desktop 10-core part, and, it is the cheapest 10-core at this frequency range that Intel has to offer, which says a lot considering it is (to my understanding) overclockable. Does that mean it deserves a 70% price increase? Well, that depends on what you're comparing it to. At the very least, it will have 2 more cores than any other [Intel] desktop part you look at. That automatically gives it the right for a 20% price increase. It has 40 PCIe lanes - that's Xeon territory right there, and is often why Xeons are so much more expensive than their desktop counterparts. That could contribute to at least another 20% of a price increase right there. It has quad channel memory support. Even though that doesn't mean a whole lot beyond synthetic benchmarks, I'm not aware of any other desktop part that has this. So maybe that would add another 10% to it's value. Lastly, this CPU is nearly untouchable for desktop parts. Intel can put any sort of extra price premium since they have no competition and anybody who wants this performance will pay anything for it. So, does that mean this price is worth it? IMO absolutely not, but I wouldn't say it's price is outrageous (compared to their other products) and I wouldn't say Intel is being any more greedy about this product than they are about the 6600K.

I think people are forgetting that the 6950X has 10 physical cores. It is, to my knowledge, the only desktop 10-core part, and, it is the cheapest 10-core at this frequency range that Intel has to offer, which says a lot considering it is (to my understanding) overclockable. Does that mean it deserves a 70% price increase? Well, that depends on what you're comparing it to. At the very least, it will have 2 more cores than any other [Intel] desktop part you look at. That automatically gives it the right for a 20% price increase. It has 40 PCIe lanes - that's Xeon territory right there, and is often why Xeons are so much more expensive than their desktop counterparts. That could contribute to at least another 20% of a price increase right there. It has quad channel memory support. Even though that doesn't mean a whole lot beyond synthetic benchmarks, I'm not aware of any other desktop part that has this. So maybe that would add another 10% to it's value. Lastly, this CPU is nearly untouchable for desktop parts. Intel can put any sort of extra price premium since they have no competition and anybody who wants this performance will pay anything for it. So, does that mean this price is worth it? IMO absolutely not, but I wouldn't say it's price is outrageous (compared to their other products) and I wouldn't say Intel is being any more greedy about this product than they are about the 6600K.

Not really as the 5960X was the only 8 core desktop CPU (at the time) and it was priced similarly to the 4960X (the six core that came before it), there was no 70% price increase. Not sure why you are using 40 lanes or DDR4 as a justification either as neither of those are exclusive to the 6950X so they absolutely do not add to it's value. We can debate all day but it won't change the price, the fact is that Intel sells it at that price because they know the market segment they are targeting will pay it /end of.

Not really as the 5960X was the only 8 core desktop CPU (at the time) and it was priced similarly to the 4960X (the six core that came before it), there was no 70% increase.

Both the 5960X and 4960X had enough competition, therefore, they needed to be priced competitively. If massive parallelization was your interest, AMD had 16-core Opterons at good prices. There were also similar Xeon parts that were very competitive to those i7s. But, there isn't really a 10-core Xeon that competes, nor an AMD CPU. Get into SPARC or PPC and you're still going to struggle finding a single CPU that is a direct competitor. Intel knows this, so they did a crazy price increase.

Not sure why you are using 40 lanes or DDR4 as a justification either as neither of those are exclusive to the 6950X so they absolutely do not add to it's value.

I didn't say DDR4, I said quad channel memory. Regardless, it seems all 3 CPUs support quad channel, and I wasn't aware those other 2 CPUs had 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes. So I guess that point is moot.