The i7 860 should be pretty solid for most things, but you will definitely see noticeable gains if you regularly use multi-threaded applications and/or a gamer. In that case, you'll at least want to go with Sandy Bridge. You can get the 2600K or 2700K for rather cheap these days, and I've heard they're easier to OC than IVB or Haswell because the latter two generations no longer have the CPU soldered to the IHS. So, the newer Intels are harder to sustain low temperatures on when OCing. You're not going to see a huge jump with IVB or Haswell...realistically 5-10% jump in performance each generation. When OCed, even a 2500K won't leave you wanting and should provide noticeable gains over the 860.

As mentioned, Microcenter is going to be your best option. You can save some cash and go for the mid-tier IVB or Haswell CPUs or go for something like the 4770K, which is a really solid CPU. If you can swing the cash, the i7 is generally worth it (see benchmarks in BF4 for i7s vs i5s).

I'm assuming your GTX670 is a 2GB model. If so, I would recommend you upgrade to a card with at least 3GB of VRAM. Newer games are starting to use well over 2GB of RAM, especially at 1600p and with high settings (why else do you have a GTX 670? haha). Having a memory bottleneck with your GPU is NOT fun. You could SLI, but you'll still only have 2GB of usable VRAM. If it's one of the 4GB models, SLI would be a good choice.

You're not going to see a huge jump in performance unless you go with a GTX 780, R9 290X, etc. My heavily OCed GTX 780 (1250/6500) is just about right at 1440p/120Hz. With that and my 4.5GHz 2500K, I get about 60-70FPS pretty easily on a busy BF4 MP server on ultra settings (100% scaling, no AA).

Anandtech is still a good place for computer hardware news and reviews. I go to TechReport for most GPU reviews, as they were one of the first places to identify the need for frametime analysis and not just average framerate. Many other sites are starting to adopt those practices. Really, though, I aggregate reviews from a lot of sites to get a better idea of how hardware actually performs.

And I think your advice is a tad bit outdated and shortsighted.

But, realistically, it all depends on what Marv's needs are. Does he not need AA at all? In that case, you're mostly right...games probably won't use 2GB VRAM for a while, even at 1600p. However, most PC gamers I've talked to IRL and online prefer at least 2x MSAA on 1440p or 1600p. Sure, even BF4 today at 1600p, ultra settings, 2x MSAA probably won't use 2GB of VRAM...though most analysis I've seen put that somewhere between 1.8 and just over 2GB of VRAM usage. Without AA, BF4 at ultra 1600p uses around 1.6-1.8GB VRAM, but I find the aliasing to be too distracting even at high resolutions without AA (the foliage...OH GOD, THE SHIMMERING FOLIAGE). And FXAA looks too much like mud...

Now, there are some things to take into account. First, the vast majority of GPU reviews do NOT account for VRAM usage, nor will FPS charts indicate a VRAM bottleneck necessarily. FPS in general is a just a poor way to determine a GPU's performance (frame time analysis is much, much better).

And don't get me wrong...SLI GTX670s will be beastly assuming an application doesn't need more than 2GB VRAM.

In relation to the above, I tried playing a Skyrim at 1080P (no AA) on my 2GB GTX 680 with some graphical mods, mostly HD textures and a light ENB setting (no AO). I understand that the HD mods aren't always perfectly optimized, but that game with mods chew through VRAM like no other. With those mods, my game stuttered like a real bitch any time I turned around! But, hey, the FPS results were excellent...too bad the game still ran like crap. VRAM bottlenecks are not a fun thing...much easier to deal with a bottlenecked GPU core.

And don't try to tell me to play Skyrim without graphical mods. That game can be really ugly at times and uses a crappy lighting system!

Most modern games these days are multi-threaded. Saying better multi-threaded performance will do "jack squat for gaming" is becoming outdated quickly. Is it as good as it should be? Not yet, but I get the impression it's more common these days to see a multi-threaded game over a single-threaded game (though, poorly implemented multi-threaded games can be rather common).

You must also remember that the new consoles (minus the Wii U) are running 8-core x86 CPUs with 8GB RAM. That brings heavily threaded games with very large textures, detailed models, heavy graphical effects, etc. This is most certainly going to translate into PC gaming as well, given the amount of multi-platform games these days. Things are going to change very quickly with the new generation, especially once developers focus only on PC/Xbone/PS4.

So, thinking ahead, 2GB of VRAM just isn't going to cut it in the near future for 1440p/1600p at high settings, and most folks still want at least a bit of MSAA (post-processing AA can be real hit-and-miss). However, as mentioned, it all comes down to what Marv needs and prefers. If he's the type that upgrades his GPU yearly OR doesn't mind probably having to turn down memory-related graphical settings to avoid VRAM bottlenecks within the next couple years, then a 2nd GTX 670 is a perfect choice (unless you're worried about SLI incompatibilities, bugs, micro-stuttering, etc.). If he wants to keep top-notch settings and run a bit of AA at 1600p for the next couple years, 2GB VRAM is really stretching it and will probably necessitate another purchase within 2 years.

Also, you should read more reviews of recent PC games and CPU-related performance. The Sandy Bridge Intels offered a noticeable jump in IPC and single-threaded performance over the CPUs that came before. Benchmarks cle arly show this (not necessarily in every game on earth ever). Modern games LOVE at least having Sandy Bridge, and it shows. There's much less of a gap between the i5s and i7s, sure, but you can usually get the i7s for a great combo deal at Microcenter. The i7s do show noticeable gains over i5 in games like BF4, though that is one of the games in that small list like you mentioned.

We are both offering good points and good advice. Neither of us is necessarily wrong, but neither of us really asked what Marv wants and needs. I'm basing my recommendations more on what I want out of PC gaming, and you seem to be offering it more on what you want out of PC gaming. For all we know, he could only want to play BF4 and modded Skyrim at the absolute highest settings, or maybe he only plays games that use very little VRAM and need a beastly GPU core. Maybe he thinks 30fps is smooth, maybe not. Maybe he notices stuttering, maybe not.

I think together, we've probably painted a clear enough picture to help Marv decide whether or not he needs new hardware.

Edit: Marv, one good site for GPU comparisons is TechPowerUp. With each GPU review, they have a list at the end that averages the benchmarks and compares it to almost all other cards in terms of performance per resolution, performance per cost, performance per watt, etc. It's a fast, easy way to check your options to see what sort of avg. performance gain you'll get by moving up to various other solutions.

It's true, SSD should be your first upgrade if you haven't done that yet (unless you only care about gaming performance).

ohhgourami, I had an EVGA GTX 680 (it was slightly OCed out of the box) with the blower cooler. It actually performed rather well. Surprisingly quiet, good cooling performance, at least in games. It would get a bit loud when stressed with Heaven Benchmark, 3DMark, etc., but only during long-period stability tests. Even then, the Fractal Design Define R4 case helps isolate some fan noise.

VRAM aside, I'm very happy I jumped to a GTX 780 before I got my 1440p monitor. Can't stand lower than 60fps on PC (consoles, eh, have to deal with it...), prefer 80FPS+ when I can (monitor is OCed to 120Hz). Also can't stand stuttering of any kind. I get a very ill, uneasy feeling very quickly if my games don't have nearly perfect, smooth motion with a high framerate and low/consistent frame times. I also don't like playing on anything other than close to the highest settings in games. Yes, I spend way too much money on my PC for that last ounce of performance and graphical goodness.

But, really, hitting that VRAM limit when you want eye candy is so, so infuriating.

Isn't it a bit counter-intuitive that you want a quiet PC but have a completely open case? 

But, yes, with that setup, I think it shows my "quiet" is probably "loud" to you, haha. It's hard anyway to hear my computer over the background noise in my apartment, generally.

That is a great GPU cooling setup, though. Love it! Also love when people strap the AIO CPU cooling units to GPUs.