ILikeBeans

Bruno747
*Bangs head on desk*
 
Chipset bumped from q1 to q2, now cpu is pushed to q3. This is the longest I have kept a single computer. I want to upgrade but refuse to until I can do raid m.2 or u.2 drives on HEDT platform. Now I guess I have to wait until late summer next year.
 
Broadcom needs to come out with that add on NVME raid card already so I can just go X99 and be done with it.

You need more then 4 cores, 64GB RAM? The extra lanes that important? Z170 does this already and then there is the expected Z270 and i7-7700K in January. I'm asking myself this as well because I like the idea of running M.2 raid 

For the extra lanes, it depends on your configuration.  I have two 980 Ti's and a 3440x1440 100Hz g-sync monitor.  Believe it or not, g-sync will eat up some of that bandwidth when using multiple graphics cards.  With my X79 setup and PCI-E 3.0, 16x and 8x took a 10FPS hit in The Witcher 3 compared to 16x and 16x.  This isn't the case with a non-g-sync display.  So yes, the extra lanes matter a lot if you're an enthusiast.  Also, if DX12 multi-GPU support becomes a thing, then we could see a reason to consider triple GPU configurations, which would be an impossibility on a mainstream platform.  I'd like to see at least 48 PCI-E lanes on Skylake-X just in case DX12 multi-GPU support meets its potential.
 
Not to mention, some of us do professional work as well, so >4 cores saves us some time in our work.  I'm considering a 10-core Skylake-X processor, which will be a huge step-up from my aging 3930K.  In terms of RAM, games are starting to recommend at least 16GB.  It's only a matter of time until we see even higher numbers.  I see 32GB as a minimum for enthusiasts who like to have a little breathing room.  
 
Even if you aren't on a g-sync display currently, at least Skylake-X offers you some flexibility for the future.  After all, a CPU is a much longer-term investment than a GPU (or two... or three), so it's best to have that flexibility available to you just in case you need it.  

gridironcpj
So yes, the extra lanes matter a lot if you're an enthusiast.

Call yourself a power user, don't insult the rest here that don't own the best as if they aren't really enthusiasts.  To be an enthusiast is simple, just be into things everyone else takes for granted, there is no budget requirement.
 

lehpron

gridironcpj
So yes, the extra lanes matter a lot if you're an enthusiast.

Call yourself a power user, don't insult the rest here that don't own the best as if they aren't really enthusiasts.  To be an enthusiast is simple, just be into things everyone else takes for granted, there is no budget requirement.
 

That's your own definition, not the commonly-accepted definition among the relevant communities.  By your definition, someone who cares a lot about the same things as enthusiasts, but is on a very small budget and can only afford a GTX 1050, is an enthusiast.  We usually designate enthusiasts as those who purchase high-end products.  Pretty much everyone refers to the X79 and X99 platforms as enthusiast platforms.  Budget clearly matters if you're on X79 or X99, so it seems like you have an issue with a majority of the community and its use of the term "enthusiast."  Honestly, if you felt insulted by the text you quoted, then you're a little too sensitive.

gridironcpj
1) So yes, the extra lanes matter a lot if you're an enthusiast.  
 
2) Also, if DX12 multi-GPU support becomes a thing, then we could see a reason to consider triple GPU configurations, which would be an impossibility on a mainstream platform.  
 
I'd like to see at least 48 PCI-E lanes on Skylake-X just in case DX12 multi-GPU support meets its potential.
 

1) is the miniscule jump in performance worth it that much? the PC industry needs to focus on more innovative CPU technology to get passed the 4.0-5.0ghz barrier. They have not been able to find a way to get passed this barrier without breaking the CPU without using water-cooling or LN2 cooling. It's physically impossible to run 5ghz on an air-cooler. This should be Intel and AMD's main priority, not stacking more lanes on a processor, or even adding more cores. They're too focused on "shrinking the process for the CPUs to use less power". What a joke. My honest opinion? Too many lobbyists and politicians overseeing Intel and AMD - your "go-greener" people.


2) They have had a year, almost a year and a half... Nvidia, Microsoft, AMD - they have all shot their own foot off. Nvidia cuts off their tech support for multi-GPU support and puts it in the hands of the game developers, and meanwhile Microsoft boasts that DX12 is going to have exceptional Multi-GPU support? Do any of you guys have any idea what this means? Well, obviously you guys do, but I don't think it has been processed thoroughly enough. You are not going to get what you're all expecting from these game companies with them using DX12. So, you might as well stop holding all your breath.