@sapphirescales Dare I say that you simply are not using the hardware to its full potential, or need the full potential for your situation.
That's the point. No one needs to game in 4K. There are no practical benefits. The difference is so small it's not even worth mentioning. If you game in 1080p there's no benefit to going with anything higher than a GTX 970 at this time. Now I do a lot of video rendering, which would benefit from a newer graphics card. But it's not worth the cost because the differences aren't worth $1,200. Now if I was doing video editing for 8 hours a day every day then sure. But I might do 5 hours a week. An RTX 2080 TI might reduce that to what...4.5 hours? Yup, that's worth spending $1,200. NOT! Now if it could reduce my rendering time by 80% then THAT might be worth it. But these teeny tiny performance bumps make it seem like they just keep rebranding the same old crap every year.
I'm not against paying a lot of money for good quality and high end components. The custom built system in my bedroom cost about $5,000 to build. I have an i7-7800X processor, 128GB of RAM, a 2TB NVMe SSD, and 4x 6TB hard drives for storage. I pair that with an Nvidia branded GTX 970 graphics card and it handles 4K games just fine.
I've played plenty of titles in 4K on my GTX 970 and while the frame rates were lower than in 1080p, it was still perfectly playable. Still, I prefer higher frame rates to a higher resolution, so I stick with 1080p.
I'm not saying that the RTX 2080 TI isn't more powerful than the GTX 970. I'm saying that the differences are minor and it's not worth upgrading at this time. The only reason why someone with a GTX 970 or higher graphics card should upgrade is if they have money to burn. Now if you have a really old card (older than the GTX9XX series) then it's a worthy upgrade.
With the system in my bedroom I also went with a reasonable processor. The i7-7800X isn't the most powerful processor that's compatible the LGA2066 socket motherboards. But going beyond that is just paying through the nose for very minor performance increases.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-2100-vs-Intel-Core-i3-8100/m41vs3942
Yep, 90% effective performance increase with 20W lower TDP isn't even worth mentioning. YAWN
I agree with most, if not all, of the other examples though. Especially Windows 8!
I'm very excited about 8th gen CPU's and the upcoming 9th gen CPU's. It's been a LONG time since Intel has released a worthy CPU upgrade, and the 8th gen is a noticeable upgrade from even the 7th gen CPU's. When I talk about CPU's only having minor speed differences, this is what I'm talking about:
Intel Core i7-3770k CPU - Passmark score of 9,525:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-3770K+@+3.50GHz&id=2
Intel Core i7-7770k CPU - Passmark score of 12,054:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7700K+@+4.20GHz&id=2874
In 4 freaking years, 4 new CPU's and that's only a 26% increase in speed. Each generation increases the speed by 1.5% to 7%. Why even release a new CPU when the differences in performance are so small? Now look at the 8th Gen CPU:
Intel Core i7-8770k CPU - Passmark score of 15,974:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-8700K+@+3.70GHz&id=3098
That's a 32% speed increase in only ONE generation! THAT is a good upgrade! We should be seeing these speed increases EVERY SINGLE YEAR instead of 1.5% to 7% teeny tiny bumps in performance. Moores Law (which states that computer speed (or more specifically, transistor count) doubles every 2 years) is now like every 8-10 years.
Too much R&D funds have been spent on mobile CPU's and trying to reduce power draw rather than trying to make more powerful processors. I don't care if the stupid thing draws 500 watts so long as it's fast and powerful. If Moores Law had continued with CPU's, the 8th gen i7 would have a Passmark score of around 50,000. Even the fastest consumer CPU (which costs about $2,000!) only has a Passmark score of around 22,000. Where's my 50,000 Passmark CPU? If Intel keeps up their past trend of 1.5% to 7% performance increases per year, I'll be looking forward to a 50,000 Passmark CPU in about 2040 - 2050. That's unacceptable.
It was a "planned" money drop. 
