i5 4670K First Gaming Build - Check

[cdmc5]

Please quickly scan through my part list:
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/cdmc5/saved/1YqI

I am a first time builder and want to overclock the CPU to play top end games, I will also be using it for CAD and Photoshop.

Will the GPU be suitable? Reccomendations?
Thanks

 

[smorizio]

With the 520w power supply check the amp rating on the 12v line. The CPU is 80w and let's say the gpu at max is 300w. 380w/12 online Is almost 32 amps. Then you have your hard drive and fans. You may want bump to a 650w unit to give yourself some overhead on the power supply. The other issue is micro cases are harder to keep cool do to cramped airflow.
Swapping the case for r200 or antec one or mid size case would be better.
With small cases two issues can happen. One the length of the case is too short and max length of gpu are 9-10 inches long. Because they would hit the hard drive tray. Most good gpu using the 10 to 11 inch length now.
The other issue is case with and CPU cooler height. With small cases you might need a c type cooler or htpc CPU cooler.

 

[Thanatos Telos]

Looks good, but ditch the thermal paste, the Hyper 212 EVO comes with a tube of the stuff.

 

[diazalon]

Looks good, but ditch the thermal paste, the Hyper 212 EVO comes with a tube of the stuff.

I say keep it good thermal compound can help temps.
its a nice build but step up the powersupply to about 600W for headroom

 

[Marcopolo123]

Good psu:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Be-Quiet-E9-CM-580W-Straight-Power/dp/B005LUXLUU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374054652&sr=8-1&keywords=Be+quiet+e9

Your motherboard is overpowered, cheaper one is enough

 

[SamGriffiths]

That compound is conductive isn't it? I'd stay away from it but that's just me.

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/1hze4

+Better HDD
+Faster SSD
+Great motherboard
+Bigger PSU

-More expensive.

 

[diazalon]

That compound is conductive isn't it? I'd stay away from it but that's just me.

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/1hze4

+Better HDD
+Faster SSD
+Great motherboard
+Bigger PSU

-More expensive.

I like that build very much but get a samsung 840 120gb ssd instead
It's supposed to be faster and for the thermal compound get this : http://goo.gl/zaR0h
it reduced my cousins GPU temps by about 30 Degrees :O

Don't get the caviar blue get the black or seagate barracuda

 

[sam_p_lay]

That compound is conductive isn't it? I'd stay away from it but that's just me.

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/1hze4

+Better HDD
+Faster SSD
+Great motherboard
+Bigger PSU

-More expensive.

If it wasn't conductive it wouldn't transfer (conduct) heat The PSU is a good choice, though the SSD is definitely not faster. Real-world performance between all modern SSDs is so close though I'd just go with the cheapest from a reliable drive manufacturer and reliable controller manufacturer (i.e. not Sandforce, which Kingston uses). Samsung 840 is a good choice, or Plextor M5S (my top choice) or Sandisk Ultra Plus. Samsung 840 Pro is only worth buying if you want the satisfaction of owning the very best.

 

[SamGriffiths]

The HyperX 3k is great, very reliable, the 840 has a Read 530MB/s and a Write 390MB/s and the HyperX has Read 555MB/s, Write 510MB/s. You're right, he's not going to notice the difference but the HyperX is cheaper so to me it's a clear choice.

I personally don't like the barracuda, they seem to break a lot, and since speed isn't really an factor because he's using an SSD, I'd stick with the Blue.

 

[sam_p_lay]

The HyperX 3k is great, very reliable, the 840 has a Read 530MB/s and a Write 390MB/s and the HyperX has Read 555MB/s, Write 510MB/s. You're right, he's not going to notice the difference but the HyperX is cheaper so to me it's a clear choice.

I personally don't like the barracuda, they seem to break a lot, and since speed isn't really an factor because he's using an SSD, I'd stick with the Blue.

Ahhh I didn't realise you were going off manufacturer specs on the box You don't know about the compressible/incompressible data performance issues with Sandforce SF2281 controllers? You need benchmarks to really understand the differences. All manufacturers quote only best-case-scenario performance for their drives (highly compressible data in Sandforce's case) and even those best-case-scenario numbers can rarely be replicated in actual benchmarks. Intel used to quote honest numbers, but not so much any more... Sandforce is the least honest of them all.

Get on Anandtech if you want to really learn about performance. Or save your time and don't even bother learning because like I say, it literally makes no difference to boot times, software loading, game saves/maps loading etc...

As for hard disk reliability, I don't touch WD drives because I've had several fail on me. Seagate have always been rock solid for me. But I've seen so many reports of problems from all drive manufacturers that I've accepted you'll be rolling the dice whoever you choose. Although I choose Seagate, I know it's not guaranteed. Just not a reliable technology unfortunately.