Will my PC be fine

[Serious_Undead54]

I am building a PC but I don't want to take a risk.So,I want to know that the Parts will work fine with each other.
My PC specs are following-

I5 4690k (Rs.13977/-) or I7 2600k (14000/-)


Asrock z97 extreme 3 (Rs.9975/-)


Corsair
CMV8GX3M1A1600C11 (Rs.2525)


MSI GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Video Card(Rs.40099/-)


Corsair VS 650W ATX Power Supply or Antec vp550p (Both near about Rs.4000/-)(Antec costs more)


Asus DRW-24D3ST DVD/CD Writer(Rs.1000)

(I'm probably not gonna to OC my processor)


Q1-Any other MoBo under Rs.15000/-


Q2-What should be the minimum wattage and Amps of this Pc's PSU?

Q3-Any other Pc under Rs.75000/-


*I don't require storage(will borrow it from my older pc)*

**I live in India where every pc part cost a lot**

 

[CTurbo]

The FX8350 is barely a mediocre gaming cpu these days and I cannot possibly recommend one. They are old and only getting older. Even the i3 6100 would perform better.

The Corsair VS series psus are also not very good.


I recommend the i5 6600 (non K) and a H170 motherboard + 2x8GB DDR4 RAM

 

[amtseung]

For gaming, the FX series is pretty abysmal. For the same money, I'd put it into the 6600k of all the options. It's not worth getting a Haswell when the Skylake costs the same. Even if all you play is DX12 games I'd get the 6600k. Architecturally, the FX series is flawed, and the 8350 doesn't actually function as an octocore. It runs 4 cores most of the time, with the other 4 cores just sitting there handling the occasional extras. It's kind of like the way intel does hyperthreading, except instead of virtual cores, they're real cores, and horribly inefficient at that. Go skylake, get 2x4GB DDR4 sticks, and save yourself the headache. Learn from my mistakes, don't get an FX.

Personally, every product I receive from Asus has been defective or flawed. On top of that, Asus is one of, if not the worst when it comes to customer service. Gigabyte or MSI would probably be better. I would not run anything less than a 990fx chipset on the more powerful of FX processors, because they aren't usually built to handle the necessary power throughput. For the 4690k, I'd recommend the MSI Z97 Gaming 5. Not the cheapest board, but I trust MSI as a motherboard manufacturer the most. For the 6600k, I'd place my bets on the Z170 MSI equivalent. Gigabyte isn't bad, but they have a history of atypical "bolt patterns" for case mounting and motherboard standoff patterns.

If you're going to run these processors without overclocking, you'd be kind of defeating the whole point of paying for these components.

Minimum wattage I'd recommend is roughly 450W from the 12v rail of a power supply. Which unit you pick specifically is up to you. The 12v rail capability is probably the most important thing, and other than that, how close the 12v rail capability is compared to the sticker wattage. In theoretical examples, I'd much rather buy a 550W power supply with 530W on the 12v rail over a 650W power supply with 530W on the 12v rail.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

The I5 6600k does not Include a stock cooler and also the z97 chipset Motherboards are cheaper and better.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

The Asrock Z97 Extreme3 has quad sli support which will be helpful in future.

By the way, The I5 6600k will cost me 16900 (approximately 3000/- more than I5 4690k)

 

[CTurbo]

I recommend the i5 6600 (non K) and a H170 motherboard + 2x8GB DDR4 RAM

 

[amtseung]

I recommend the i5 6600 (non K) and a H170 motherboard + 2x8GB DDR4 RAM

I had posted about the 6600k based on what the OP originally listed before it was edited.

Now that I know he lives in India, I take back everything I posted about price to performance, and can no longer make a recommendation. Prices there are far too different compared to prices here in the states.

I would not get the I7 2600k. Good luck finding a functioning motherboard to go with that CPU. They haven't manufactured any in quite a number of years.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

There is not a very big difference in performance of I5 4690k and 6600k

The 6600k setup will cost more than I5 4690k as 6600k setup will require an CPU cooler separately and even after that it can't be overclocked because of H170 mobo and even an H170 mobo costs minimum Rs.7000/- whereas an Asus z97 pro WiFi is costing Rs.5600/- and if I invest that money in liquid cooler for I5 4690k,then,it will outperform the 6600k

 

[CTurbo]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm recommending the regular i5 6600.

NOT the i5 6600k.

The regular i5 6600 does come with a cooler.

Even the i5 6500 would be great. No need for the overclocking nonsense.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

Oh,I didn't know that regular 6600 comes with cooler.

BUT THAT TOO COSTS 15000/-(RS.1000/- MORE THAN 4690K)

 

[amtseung]

I think, deep inside, he really wants the 6600k, but can't afford it. So he keeps talking about it, and then talks himself out of buying one because it's too expensive.

Honey, if cost is the big issue here, and if you don't want to overclock, I think you're looking at the wrong set of hardware. Read what CTurbo wrote, carefully.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

I might overclock in future.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

Sorry,the 6600(non-K) costs 16000/-

 

[CTurbo]

I might overclock in future.

Not worth the time, effort, or cost.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

Instead of buying 6600 setup (a bit costlier),I can invest that money in a good CPU coolers and then overclock my 4690k

 

[CTurbo]

You already have the 4690k? Then there is no reason to consider upgrading anytime soon.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

No I'm not having any of the part

 

[CTurbo]

Look, the i5 4690k is a very good cpu. If you want to get it, get it. Just don't expect overclocking it to help very much if at all. I REALLY recommend not dumping a lot of money into a cooler to overclock it.

 

[amtseung]

I might overclock in future.

Not worth the time, effort, or cost.

If you don't want to take a risk, and every little bit of money matters, don't overclock. Don't even consider it. Keep in mind, overclocking voids your warranties, so if you do have a hardware failure, it's near impossible to get a replacement.

People don't overclock out of necessity. If your components aren't up to par with the performance you desire, upgrading them outright is far more cost-effective in the long term. When people like me overclock, it's purely for fun. It's because we can, and we're totally okay with the extra cost and we're totally aware of the risk involved. We have back ups, and we have a way to function even if the overclocked rig fails. We push the utmost performance from our components just so we can say, "Hey look, I beat your predictions by 100mhz, I won our $5 bet." I have overclocked a lot of components I've owned to the breaking point. They weren't worth a lot of money so I couldn't really sell them, but I already had the practical upgrades lined up and in shipping, so the last few days of the lifespan of the component were spent beating the living daylights out of it.

 

[Serious_Undead54]

Ok