Well, the amd chip runs at 5.0 Ghz. There's also an unlocked multiplier, and it's $10 cheaper than Intel chip (I'm pinching every dollar I can)
So what fan should I get then? The info on the case said there were only 4 fan ports, and only 2 were at 120mm ports.
Well, I looked into a small (120gb) ssd to use as an OS drive, but after many hours trying to figure out how to make an os drive, I gave up and opted for a RAID 0 configured 6tb which comes cheaper. The hard drives are seagate barracudas.
Are you sure? The 9590 uses 220w. There is also fans to power, the optical drive, RAM, etc, etc. It just seems like I need the 1000w psu.
Well in it's defence, it runs at 178.5 Gb/sec. I don't think there is a better gpu for the price. Could you possibly lead me to a better one for a similar cost? And to answer that other question, Yes this a gaming oriented rig. The res of this chip is 2560x1600 and the screen that I selected was at 1920x1080. I plan on hd gaming.
The 9590 is a stupid product from a company struggling to keep up with Intel in the high performance segment, and failing miserably at it. Case in point- at the same clock speed, a 6 core Phenom II defeats a 6 core Bulldozer CPU and in some cases edges out a 6 core Piledriver CPU. That's pretty darn sad.
9590 is an overclocked 8320. That's all it is. They cherry picked an 8320/50 that could operate at such a high clock speed reliably at an acceptable voltage, and they jacked the price over 300%. That's it. Odds are, if you got a decent 8320/50, you could replicate a 9590 yourself for a heck of a lot less coin. Even if you got that 8320 to within 400-500Mhz of the 9590, how many frames per second would you lose in gaming vs the 9590? 1? 1/2 of 1? Max? If that? It's not worth it.
Intel's 4790K is an infinitely superior CPU in a number of ways. It runs cooler, has vastly superior IPC (instructions per clock) and has more instruction sets, as well as the ability to reliably address larger amounts of high speed memory due to a better memory controller.
Choosing a number of mechanical hard drives vs choosing an SSD and 1 or 2 mechanical hard drives is a very bad move. You researched how to create an OS drive and couldn't figure it out so you gave up on the idea? and you're stuck on that? Nonsense, my friend. That's what forums are for. Creating an OS drive is as easy as inserting the Windows DVD (or the USB drive you have with the Windows installation on it) and selecting your SSD as the OS drive. It takes 3 seconds. An SSD is about 5X faster in large file reads/writes, and has MUCH faster seek times (almost too fast to measure) vs HDD. Doesn't suffer loss of performance due to the part of the platter you are writing to, fragmentation, etc. Consumes less power, is shock resistant, is less prone to failure, etc etc. There is no good reason NOT to include an SSD if your budget is over $900 US.
The GPU is another bad choice. Why a 270X? Did you know that for about the same price you can get a 3GB 280X? A much better card. You won't miss the extra GB of RAM and tacking 4GB on a card as paltry as the 270X in the first place is pretty pointless.
You do need a beefy powersupply for a system running the 9590 (which is again, a ridiculous purchase), but you don't need a 1000W unit. If you go Intel you can get a 550-600W PSU and be very happy with it.
What you said about the GPU "It runs at 178 GB/sec" and "the res of this chip is 2560X1600", both
. You can run all sorts of different resolutions off that GPU, including resolutions larger than that across multiple screens, and the 178GB/sec is the memory bandwidth. It has little to do with how powerful or not powerful the GPU is. There are GPUs with 256-bit memory bus that defeat GPUs with 512-bit memory bus in various scenarios.
I was glad to read just now that you plan to build Intel and listen to what people here are suggesting to you. Smart move. I hadn't noticed that before I wrote this post, so my heated comments may not have been necessary, but I'll leave them up as they may serve as a warning to others not to have preconceptions that may hurt them in the long run.
I think the build that was suggested with the 4790K and the GTX 970 will be very good for you. I don't like the case, but cases are about personal choice. If you have the coin, I think the Corsair 760T is difficult to beat for looks. It's more costly, but is a beautiful case. You can also go with a $50 to save some money if you prefer. There are many attractive cases that will fit a 240mm closed loop liquid cooler and a large graphics card.
Also, you should know that you have the option to go very small with Intel. You can get ALL the same parts and ALL the power into something that you can fit in a small backpack. Check out the following:
Corsair 250D
EVGA Hadron Air
Both these cases will accomodate 16GB RAM, a 4790K (overclocked), and a GTX 970. The boards that fit these cases are called ITX, and they are adorably small, while packing in all the features of many larger boards.
With the Hadron you are limited to a small tower air cooler while the 250D will take a 240mm liquid cooler like the H100i. Check them out. Small form factor has many advantages. The main ones are that it takes up less space in your house, and that you can pick it up under one arm and take it with you to a friend's house, to a LAN party, on vacation, etc. If you only want a single video card and you're happy with a 4790K, there's no reason not to go tiny. It's very "in" right now.
