So, this build is how its looking. One last check, anything wrong before I begin ordering stuff?

 

I would exchange the Intel SSD with the Crucial M4. You get the 120GB model for the same price as the 80GB Intel, and the Crucial M4 has SATA 3/SATA 6Gb/s.

 

You never did answer on whether you were planning on overclocking. If you aren't, you can knock off the CPU cooler and possibly go down to the i5-2400. It's not much of a speed drop and saves you ~$20. Even if you stick with the 2500K, the stock cooler is plenty good enough, even for mild overclocking. However, if you're planning on cranking it up to 4 GHz+, keep the aftermarket cooler. Given your relative inexperience with computers, I'd recommend against overclocking - it can be a bit tricky and you can fry your CPU if you do it wrong.

I also second Sacro's suggestion of the Cruicial M4. Intel SSDs are overpriced IMO, and Crucial doesn't use the crappy Sandforce firmware.

 

In Australia prices are different.

Dropping down to http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=187_346_1184&products_id=18947 (+40 to budget)

and upgrading ssd to http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=210_902_1221&products_id=19211 (-40 to budget) would be good though!

You won't notice the difference in cpu's, but you'll notice the quality of life improvement offered by a larer ssd!

The aftermarket cooler is just a good idea imo! Lower temps = better lifespan and less noise = more yay.

Also use whatever site you intend to buy things from to link your parts list (manually, probably) rather than the easy-mode pcpartspicker since it means people can't give you advice that takes into account the prices you'll be seeing.

 

I wasn't planning on overclocking, since as you said there is a risk of breaking the computer. But I do want to keep the cooler anyway, since my biggest problem right now is overheating and I'd like to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Downgrading the CPU, what difference does it make? They're both 3.3ghz and don't appear to be different.

Changing the SSD to Crucial M4. I read some good reviews to back up Sacro and Coleam, so its looking like a better option.

Once I get this CPU thing sorted, then all I have to do is wait a bit then order. Got the build pretty much squared away.

 

I still think you're skimping somewhat on your power supply.

What you have will work for the system you have now, but it's not very future proof. You'd probably have trouble if you tried to upgrade to a top of the range card like the 580 at a later date. And SLI/Crossfire, which your motherboard can handle, is out of the question.

To compare, when I built a £750 computer a couple years back, the PSU I bought was £75.

At stock speeds the 2500 and 2500K are exactly the same. The difference is that the 2500K is built for overclocking, and is a beast when you do so. But if you're not going to overclock, buying the 2500K is pointless. And as has been said, if you're not overclocking the third party fan is something of an unnecessary extravagance. The Intel fan really is quite good.

I'd change to the 2500, ditch the CPU cooler, invest the difference in upgrading to a 600W modular PSU with a good efficiency rating.

 

Taure, modern cards are staying at the same power efficiency or being more efficient - If this PSU is good enough now (which it is) it will also be good enough for a single card setup in the future due to efficiency increasing rather than decrease. Any disagreement with this is just outright wrong, sorry!

Additionally, like I said earlier in the thread - if he wanted to do sli/xfire, a 600w psu won't cut it either so buying a (trivially) higher wattage psu serves for 'future proofing' is silly and serves 0 purpose.

There are purposes for having a higher than you need power supplyvbut they aren't at all relevant here due to budget constraints.

For CPU's, the 2500k/2500(non-k) has a 'stock' speed of 3.3ghz and a 'turbo' speed of 3.7ghz. For all intent and purpose this means that the cpu is a 3.7ghz cpu baseline. Stock and turbo are basically meaningless modifiers that are marketing keywords (turbo especially) that make it seem like you're getting added value when you really aren't (but that's another story).

The 2320 has a 'stock' speed of 3ghz and a 'turbo' speed of 3.3ghz. You will not notice the difference between a 2500 and a 2320.

I recommended the intel ssd because it was cheaper and not significantly worse, although the m4 is a better buy (and not much more expensive).

 

It's good enough now for the card he has. It wouldn't be good enough now for the current top of the range cards.

Also, while efficiency is increasing, total power requirements also continue to rise. Increases in efficiency just mean that graphics card makers pack more in. The GeForce 580, for example, has two GPUs on the one card. It's a power hungry beast. It's also very efficient.

 

Nope, you're wrong



(source)

As you can see, the 580 GTX uses less power than the previous nvidia top of the line the 480 GTX, and the HD7970 uses less power than the previous ATi top of the line the HD6970. For single gpu cards, although teh same trend will be apparent in multi gpu cards, just with a larger base power draw.

 

The 480 was a inefficient power hog and is something of an exception.

You'll note that the 570 uses more power than the 470; the 560 more than the 460; the 550 more than the 450.

On top of that, you've got the 590 sitting at the top there with a mammoth power usage.

 

6 watts(570 vs 470), 6 watts(560ti v 465) and 8 watts(550ti v 450) are definitely significant differences Taure My point was 'the same or better' which is completely true at basically every price point.

(Just a note, for the 560 ti v 460, they were aimed at different market segments - the 560ti is more similarly placed to the 465, as a card above a 460/560 but below the 470/570)

And the gtx 590 is a multi gpu card and isn't a reasonable point at all.

 

The 590 actually supports your point. The 590 is nothing more than a double 580, and yet uses less power than two 580 would, and if nvida will bring more dual gpu cards in the future (and I don't doubt that they will) then the power efficiency will continue to rise.

 

As interesting as this conversation is (it isn't), I'd just like to point out that if you're planning on playing BF3, you'll want to install it to the SSD. The load times on it are fucking ridiculous.

 

Well this is an interesting debate. To put one thing to rest, I'm not going to be overclocking (reason previously mentioned) or using SLI/crossfire. I don't think it's necessary and I dont want to buy a 750W PSU and a second GPU.

Taure: Though I appreciate the help here, I don't want to upgrade this computer for a couple years. While the next few incremental advances in chip architecture will likely draw more power as you've said, the next revolution will use less. Likely much less. I think by the time I'm upgrading, I'll probably be fairly safe with the less powerful PSU, and even if I'm not safe, upgrading my PSU three years from now isn't something I'm afraid of if necessary.

Will do nmb