Digital Storm has unveiled the Aura, a high-end all-in-one featuring a 34-inch ultra-wide curved monitor with a resolution of 3440 x 1440. The machine is one of the first to offer Intel's 10-core Core i7-6950X Extreme Edition, which retails for $1,723. There's also a GTX 1080 thrown in for good measure.
Digital Storm is touting upgradability as a differentiator with the Aura, with the all-in-one using off-the-shelf hardware. The configuration options do not allow you to select the i7-6950X just yet, but the variant with a Core i7-6700K and GTX 1080 is available for $3,127. There's a $1,300 difference between the Skylake CPU and the Broadwell-E processor, so you can imagine what the Aura with the i7-6950X will cost when you factor in the added cost of an X99 motherboard.
Reader comments
Digital Storm's latest all-in-one puts your gaming PC to shame
Holy Mother of electronics!
Very nice
Now this is an All-In-One that I can get behind, if you can change the components for desktop parts.
Though for that price I'd buy a Hololens.
60Hz ... next to gaming tag .. :)
It`s impressive as what point the technology got to fit all that in a monitor, but I wouldn`t call it gaming, everyone who experienced 144Hz won`t go back to 60 be it even with G-Sync.
Also a 4790k is faster than 6950X in gaming due to higher per clock speed. There is no logic in the components at some point.
The 4790k is not faster than the 6950x even for single threaded applications, which is the where clock speed makes the most difference. That's because there have been performance improvements in other areas so that more operations and look-aheads are performed per clock cycle. But because all modern games are also multithreaded, the 10-core chip crushes its predecessors.
You clearly didn't see the bench marks with this cpu. It only crushes in video rendering or professional applications, in gaming is just the same but way more expensive.
That doesn't fit with what I've read, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Could you provide a link to support that assertion?
Here are a couple of link on tests that do say most of today's games aren't able to take advantage of more than 4 cores (maybe that's what you had seen?), but they expect that to change with DX12 and believe that this chip will substantially blow away older chips when future more demanding games come out that can take advantage of this new chip. But even with older games, the new chip still beats the 4790k by a bit for gaming (admittedly not by a lot on older, simpler games), while leaving it in the dust on other applications.
http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-6950x-broadwell-e-cpu-review/
http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-4790k-devils-canyon-cpu-review/
Note the game framerates in the two reviews. And be sure you compare the 1080p resolutions. The 4790k game tests don't go higher than that, but then if you look at the 1440p results for games that list the 6950x and intermediate 5th gen chips, you can see how the 6950x beats them by more.
In other words, the more demanding the games and graphics, the more we see that the 6950x outperforms its predecessors. And as long as we can agree that games are only going to get more demanding in the future, it's pretty clear that a gamer wanting teh best should want the 6950x.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10337/the-intel-broadwell-e-review-core-i7...
i7 4790k is faster in gaming than i7 6950X but as expected looses in front of it in professional use like video rendering and such.
Anandtech does the best analysis on these. I'm not sure how I missed that and thanks for posting. However, if you look at the gaming benchmarks, I think they are pretty consistent with those in the links I posted. There are a few cases where the 4790k does incrementally better (probably not noticeably), and to your point, if those are your key games, then clearly no point in upgrading. And other older games, like GTA V, Shadows of Mordor, where the 6950x does better (though also probably not noticeably). The one case where performance differences may be noticeable (GRID) had the 6950x winning when used with nVidia GPU and 4790k winning with AMD GPU, which seems to suggest motherboard/ differences more than CPU differences, but I'd agree that's still a valid criticism, because that's part of the system.
However, Anandtech makes the same point -- that's because OLDER games aren't able to take advantage of the additional cores and don't use DX12 yet, where some of that would be automatic. So if you're building a gaming rig for performance now that you'll use for new releases over the next year or two, then in terms of performance, the 6950x is the best bet. If you're doing anything beyond gaming, especially if multitasking intensive, then the 6950x is dramatically faster. And even most gamers don't only game. If you open a lot of browser windows, for example, and those could include poorly coded sites or sites with a lot of ads, those extra cores will make a big difference. Also, for the with extra cores and faster RAM, you can safely run your game without shutting down everything else first and still get those same performance numbers (effectively, the similar comparisons reflect that the games are only using 3-4 cores, leaving 6-7 available for "background" tasks), making it faster and easier to launch the game.
However, if you're point is that the cost is tough to justify for the gaming performance boost, on that I'd have to agree.
I know older games don`t take advantage of new multicore CPUs but the gains will be marginal since the GPUs used are already maxing out, most of the people won`t need that much speed anyway. I`m a video editor and to be honest I will stick to my 4790k than dish out so much money for this CPU, it`s great, it`s fast but it`s so damn expensive.
So if it uses off-the-shelf parts, how thick is it? A video card is usually in need of more chassis space than a monitor allows.
http://www.digitalstorm.com/aura.asp
Looks to be pretty chunky, but not bad, I still prefer my own custom builds.
Of course, I'll stick to custom as well (waiting on AMD's next GPUs and CPUs before I do any changes). I really hope iFixit or someone else does a teardown of this thing. It looks fascinating in that open-back shot, but it also looks like a nightmare. If the video card fails, it seems it would take almost a full disassembly to replace, as opposed to the desktop solution of sliding it out and unclipping the PSU lines.
From what I can see it doesn't look much more than 4" thick.
It's as thick as the sum of a flat panel + the VGA (shortest side)+ motherboard.
Typical build for stupid people with too much money.
wuaah, overwatch doesn't support ultrawide :'(
Dis this mean its coming in a patch?
It wont if your running w10
An upgradable all in one? Not my cup of tea since I like to switch monitors from time to time, but I can imagine this would appeal to people tight on desk space.