Chiiiiiiiiill out.
First of all the market needs some to react to this with price changes.
About the 6600K and 6700K: I really don't see the point yet.
Still more a lot more expensive than the 4790K, no cooler, only Z170 mobos available for now, both make the whole ordeal even more expensive and the IPC increase isn't enough to make up for the clockrate.

Overclocking statistics are sparse, so there's not much I can say yet.
1. Thermal paste again, so same problem as Haswell.
2. If you don't have the cooling power to go to 1.4-1.45V (and you'll need a beefy cooler, see 1) you're looking at 4.4-4.6GHz on the 6700K, lower on the 6600K.
3. Even with >1.4V only 4.7GHz are possible consistently, only a few samples are stable at 4.8GHz, almost one above that.
4. Delidding will be very interesting.

I'm not surprised at all and I didn't expect the K SKUs to be worth it. The 6700K might be interesting if you're overclocking just for the hell of it and delidding.

BCLK overclocking on the non-K versions, maybe on non-Z170 mobos will be interesting. Since Skylake is mostly thermally limited if all the CPUs are using the same thermal paste all those that aren't as close to the max TDP that it can handle should see some easy (and in case of non-Z OC even free) gains. With the clockrates almost unchanged from Haswell this could lead to a significantly better price to performance ratio, even with higher prices and more expensive new motherboards.

Not sure what the 5820K has to do with this. It's a more expensive 6 core on a more expensive platform. On anything using 6 cores it beat the 4790K and it still beats the 6700K, not surprising with 50% more cores. Using 4 cores or less the 4790K beat it and the 6700K beats it aswell.
FYI the 5960X still has 8 cores and is still cheaper than an equivalent Xeon. Quadcores don't compete with Hexa- and Octacores. Not within 2 generations. A platform with 16 PCIe lanes doesn't compete with a platform with 40 PCIe lanes. Intel doesn't compete with itself.

Also what kind of recommendations are you reading that you think the 5820K is an option for you?

He cannot rise to the task.

#1
You can set a 144Hz monitor to 120Hz.
Getting a monitor that can do 120Hz but not 144Hz will be difficult.
Behold: 120Hz monitors
How many of those are available? A grand total of ZERO.
>=144Hz monitors
How many are available? All except 3 that have been replaced by newer models and the monoprice one.

To the rest:
Have you ever played with 50fps on 60Hz?
120fps on 144Hz is the same. So yes, if you can't get 144fps you shouldn't use 144Hz. If you can get >=144fps and use 144Hz then capping to 120fps is just plain stupid.

#29
Name one difference between Z97 and H97 apart from overclocking support.
Then think about wether that'll make a difference or not.

#23
Not sure what you mean.

#24
Wait and see if the new CPUs are better, then decide.

#25
Indeed 390 > 970. VRAM won't matter much on 1080p, but even on 1080p it's still faster at the same price. In the US I wouldn't worry about the higher power consumption either.

But about the PSU: G2 >>> GS and the G2 550W is cheaper than the GS 550W atm.

1. Irrelevant for the 6700K. Base clock from 100 to 105MHz and the 200MHz advantage is gone.

http://benchlife.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/core-i5-6400t.jpg

2. Spending 100$ to get 50$ higher resale value...
3. It's fairly simple. 350$ for cheaper CPU + non-oc mobo vs 500$ or more for high end K CPU + oc mobo + cooler.
Upgrading every 3-3.5 years vs upgrading every 5 years.
You won't get overclocks that yield +50% longer lifespan. Not anymore.
When overclocking is almost free or at least having the option is almost free (and the cooler is extra but you don't need to buy one until you actually need it) then you might be able to save money. If you have to pay a premium for both CPU and mobo it's not happening.

Keep an eye out for skylake base clock overclocking, especially on non Z mobos.

We're talking 340-350$ MSRP, for the 4790K that's 339$. I'm fairly sure microcenter will get the 6700K aswell.
If you're not going to overclock there's no reason for a K version. The 6700 is going to be cheaper. If you can live without the iGPU Xeons become an option. You also won't need a Z series motherboard. All in all around 200$ saved.

Stock cooler is absolutely fine if you're not overclocking. I'd only replace it if you think it's too loud and you can still do that later.

I think you're overestimating the power draw. Without OC all CPUs that are worth considering are <100W. The GPU is where it gets insteresting, the GTX 970 got a 145W TDP, the R9 390 sits at 275W TDP.

Yes, if you're not going to overclock a Z97 mobo is a waste of money.

Don't rush this. If nothing else new CPUs and new mobos mean price drops for the old ones. Even waiting only a week will save you money.

Crystall ball says 340-350$.
Wait for the full lineup and some more motherboards though.
Do you definitely want to overclock? Skylake actually has a chance at being a good overclocker, but nothing's for certain yet.
Not sure if I understand the cooling question, do you have any alternatives to air cooling in mind? AIO liquid coolers are useless and a custom loop doesn't fit the budget. I'm genuinely confused how a modular PSU is supposed to affect cooling. Proper case with bottom intake for the PSU and case fans and there shouldn't be any problems.

First of all: budget?

H110 is a colossal waste of money.
Why not 850 Pro?
CX430 is the absolute minimum quality that I can still safely recommend. There's no need to save 20$ on the PSU when you're spending 1000$. Generally if you're spending less than 5% of your budget on the PSU you're skimping out.

Also Xeon = cheaper, unless you plan on using quicksync or want to overclock.

6700K getting released in 4 days, calm your tits.

#11
Brand loyalty for PSUs is retarded, different platforms by the same manufacturer can perform completely different.
Oh and Corsair doesn't manufacture PSUs at all.
CX430 is built by CWT, as is the RM450.
Let's not forget that two models in the RM series required two revisions and switching the OEM before they even worked. And then there's the glorious CWT quality control (if it exists at all) that managed to miss that some units were missing parts.

So even if the RM series wasn't horribly overpriced, I'd stay as far away from them as possible.

Don't expect any miracles, especially the gamma is a nightmare.

This is what I mean with "shit colours". I'm not warning everyone for fun, the colours on 120/144Hz TN panels are really bad. That's the reason why I can't understand when someone knows they won't use lightboost because of the worse colours and reduced brightness (or even worse the "input lag") yet still gets a LB monitor (=TN panel), instead of a >100Hz IPS or at least VA panel, so they can bitch about the colours anyway. I'm hoping that's not the case here.

If you didn't know about the colours: Sucks, but that's why you do your research before buying anything.
I know it's not helping but without a colorimeter you're out of luck.
If you're fine with the settings they used and no lightboost (why were you getting theVG248QE again?) the ICC profile from pcmonitors is your best bet. Obviously it won't be perfect, it was created for a different monitor after all, but it'll definitely be better than what you're seeing now.

#33
3500kbit/s * 30s = 105Mbit ~ 13MByte
For 2 minutes it's around 52MB.

That raises two questions:
How are you streaming with <50MB free RAM?
And since 50MB RAM is an ass load: What year is it?

I'll keep posting this until everyone gets it.

http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost-faq/

tl;dr
If you only stare at the crosshair (e.g. CS) it does add input lag.
If you believe in peripheral vision it does add input lag but decreases reaction time. This is why you'd want to use lightboost. Also if you don't believe in peripheral vision you should set the fov as low as possible to make aiming easier, you're not looking at anything except your crosshair anyway, right? So I don't really see it as a tradeoff between motion blur and input lag, more as a tradeoff between motion blur and colours/contrast/etc.

120/144Hz panels have worse colours than 60Hz panels.
Lightboost capable panels have worse colours than "normal" 120/144Hz panels.
Enabling lightboost will make the colours/contrast/etc. even worse. It will also reduce brightness but I'm not sure why you'd need >120cd/m² anyway.

If you care about colours buying a lightboost capable panel and then complaining that lightboost makes it worse makes no sense. You've entered the shit colours territory when you bought a lightboost panel, not using LB won't save you. Not buying a monitor with an LB panel in the first place would've been the right course of action.

She's going places.

1. What's your budget?
2. No.
Since TF2 apparently only uses 2 threads nowadays dual core with highest single threaded performance (read: overclocked G3258) is the new meta. The FX-6300 wouldn't even be faster than an FX-4300.
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with the 290, it's got an amazing price to performance ratio so for any other game I'd say go for it but in TF2 you'll be bottlenecked by the CPU even with just a 100$ GPU, so it's just 200$ for nothing.
3. YOU KNOW THE DRILL!

Patience.

And here's the followup, thanks to quintosh:

Keep in mind it's only one run each so it's not terribly accurate.
But the point is, TF2 multithreading is absolutely fucked. There's almost nothing to gain beyond two threads.
So apparently the Pentium G3258 is the best CPU for TF2 now.
May Source 2 save us all.