— For years we have had speed improvements on new card releases while keeping the MSRP at about the same near $700. Now if you want that speed improvement you have to pay for it near $1200. Even the RTX 2080 isn't as fast as the 1080 TI and it costs more. Ray tracing sounds cool, but I don't want to pay for something that can't be fully used yet. Maybe in 3 years live ray tracing will be the norm. Another major issue to me is that competitive gaming is at an all time high. Competitive gamers are intentionally setting their graphics to the lowest settings to improve frame rate and input lag. I play Overwatch and i've adopted this practice because having the graphics turned all the way up is a major disadvantage. The realistic lighting or reflection settings get in the way of your view and it is harder to aim. Also there are a lot of detail items like bushes or flowers that players will hide in. You can only see those bushes and flowers if your graphics are turned up. So by turning it all the way down players can no longer hide from you. It just doesn't make sense now to have high realistic graphics in multiplayer games since it gives you a major disadvantage. In single player games graphics are awesome to have all the way up, but single player games aren't as popular as they once were which also defeats the purpose of ray tracing. I don't think even if ray tracing was supported or optimized for multiplayer games people would take it off because it would be harder to see your targets.

— Intel has an 18 core processor that gets about 10% more performance than this, but it is $1000 more. Not sure who in their right mind would buy an intel i9 over Ryzen options when the price is so different and performance not so much. I love intel for gaming and have the i7-8700K, but for video editors and/or media professionals AMD is the clear winner in this category for best value.

— I sold my Samsung 960 EVO 1TB and bought the Intel 900p 480GB instead. Boot times and application times are improved significantly with the higher 4k read speeds. It is also awesome for Overwatch. I am always the first one in a game to be able to pick my character because my load times are faster than everyone elses. I usually don't see other teammates pick their characters for at least 7-8 seconds after me. I'll take speed over disk space any day. For this being Intel's first release of an enthusiast SSD and to have it out perform Samsung in almost every aspect. The Samsung 960 has faster sequential speeds than the Intel 900p. HOWEVER, when I was using the Samsung 960 and benchmarking it I was getting like 1800Mbps speeds which is almost 1000Mbps lower than advertised. Mainly because heat is an issue. I did have the 960 in a heatsink on my motherboard, but still I was never getting the advertised speeds in real world situations. If my computer was off and cool for a while I can turn it on and immediately benchmark it and it would do well, but the Intel 900p has been far more consistent and because thermal throttling has not been an issue for me on the Intel 900p I am actually getting higher speeds than the Samsung 960 on sequential reads and writes. No regrets with this drive. Being an enthusiast I really hope Samsung competes with Intel by releasing something crazy this year. Its about time Samsung had competition in the SSD space, so hopefully that drives them to provide higher performance drives for consumers that can compete with Intel's latest drives

— I want it.

— I play Overwatch on max settings with a 1440p monitor using an i7-6700K with a GTX 1080. Average FPS is around 150

— I would like to see how high of a stable overclock these can get. I would also like future processors to not have an integrated GPU so we can instead get more cores or higher clock speeds if possible. I never use the integrated GPU on these.