FX6300 stock + 7870xt tahiti for gaming,will it last?

Decent combination, but any configuration only lasts as long as the person using it is willing to accept the results they receive in the titles they choose to run.

Frankly, nothing is going to last you for 2 years on high settings unless you artificially limit your choice of titles from the time of your purchase to titles that offer nothing new in terms of graphic fidelity or feature set usage. As newer titles use more features to greater effect, your card will become increasing less effective, and require settings be dialed back. On the other hand, some newer features can give better return for their cost, and give you more with less, so it's not exactly the worst thing in the world here.

Look at Tomb Raider 2013 for example, compared with the last version of the 3rd person perspective title in that series, Tomb Raider: Underworld. The medium settings for Tomb Raider 2013 look far superior to the very best the Underworld game could produce, so whether you can run a title at it's highest settings is not always a rational requirement.

I doubt it. Right now especially, unless your PC is absolute top of the line it's likely not going to last for 1080p at 60 or near 60. This is especially true right now because the new generation of consoles is right around the corner. Why would that matter? Well it's interesting. Over the past 4 or 5 years, consoles have been holding games back. This is because when developers program multiplatform, they do so for very weak hardware (i.e. consoles). By doing so, most oftentimes even their ultra settings for games scale down in quality accordingly. This is because consoles have a set list of limitations developers are busy trying to meet, so they're not as preoccupied in developing more advanced engines or more realistic textures.

So now 8th gen is about to arrive on our doorstep, and what does that mean? It means that developers have just gotten a new level of limitations, and it's on par with current medium end PCs and perhaps a bit beyond. You can even tell right now looking at games like RYSE: Son of Rome (which looks like a shitty QTE fest but that's another story) and Infamous: Second Son just how different the levels of quality are. Even as a PC gamer they're astonishing and Crysis 3 and Metro: Last Light are only so comparable to those aforementioned console exclusives. In a lot of ways, I actually find these next gen games to be better looking!

You may be wondering, well, you have a medium end system. Why wouldn't it last as long as consoles? Optimization is the answer. Consoles are optimized very well, and at the end of their cycles even games like Crysis 3 are at least moderately decent to look at. Try playing Crysis 3's PC version on an equivalent GPU as in the Xbox 360 though, and you probably wouldn't score a single digit in the lowest settings (i.e. literally unplayable). In fact it'd probably be unplayable even if you went lower then the lowest possible settings through extremely advancing tweaking.

So in short, will it last? Probably not. You can definitely keep it 2 years, hell, even 3. But expect the envelope to pushed a lot. Probably to the point where 1 year from now you'll only be scoring in the 40's without AA on, and 2 years from now only in the 30's or possibly less.

Don't sweat it though. PC's are about upgrading, and what you can do is ensure that upgrades will be inexpensive. For example, get a PSU with room to upgrade. For example, I'd say that build would do well on 520W, but perhaps go for 650W just to ensure that extra leg room. As for your CPU, the FX-6300 is good for the 7870 for now. Very well balanced. However, unless AMD's next series of FX CPUs, the steamrollers, really start catching up with Intel, don't expect there to be room for strong upgrades on that AM3+ chipset motherboard. If you go with an Intel motherboard socket type, particularly one with an LGA 1150 socket type and one of its haswell cores, you'll have plenty of future upgrades. Actually, you probably wouldn't even need to upgrade for at least 2 or 3 years. There are plenty of people still rocking an i5 2500k and loving it, and probably still will be when Intel's next line of CPUs come out. AMD CPUs on the other hand, are a lot more limited in the GPUs they keep up with. I see a lot more people changed from Zambezi/Bulldozer (FX-6100, 4100, etc.) to Vishera/Piledriver (FX-6300, 4300, etc.) then did the people that changed from Ivy bridge to Haswell or Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. As for a GPU's longevity, those typically aren't too good for 2 years unless you have something in the $400 range and up. That's alright though, because SLI/Crossfire has sort of helped with that. A year from now, the 7870 should be considerably less expensive and AMD will probably have corrected their drivers by then, so Crossfire should be good to go on that.

Anyway, I hope this helped!

What's your build and where do you live? Because if you're in the US and your budget is $750 then here:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($220.98 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI B75A-G43 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($75.24 @ Amazon)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($73.98 @ Newegg)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card ($245.91 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master Elite 431 Plus (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($34.00 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic 620W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $754.09
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-29 02:35 EDT-0400)

I would disagree with consoles being more optimized. How many different code paths do people think developers actually create? Console games have their settings cast in stone, and it's not necessarily a very impressive set of choices made about the settings, either. Even more irksome is that the consumer is hard pressed to make changes in regards to those settings, whether it's for greater graphics fidelity at the expense of speed, or to lower the settings so high frame rates can be achieved. To whom should we leave the choice of frame rate? Consoles run better because the consumer can do nothing to change how much is being asked of the hardware by the software.

If developers could make the sorts of optimizations often attributed to consoles, they would scarcely, universally choose to reject the same optimizations where possible on a PC as an industry. It would be too easy for one developer to go rogue and have great gains over the others, thereby trumping competition, if it were a simple matter of optimizing. While you can do minor ones for a reasonable cost, often times the major optimizations are not even worth the cost in time or money to implement them, and as such, they don't happen on any platform, including consoles. Cost / benefit.

I have yet to see a console title that produces visuals anywhere near the subjective quality of what I would consider to be a mid-range PC, while at the same time approaching a consistent 60 fps, and I doubt I'm likely to see one.

I would also disagree that consoles are holding games back. Consoles don't develop games, developers do. Logically then, it's the developers that are making the decisions about the final product, not an irrational, inanimate object. In my opinion, blaming consoles has always been an unacceptable excuse.

You're right, innovation isn't stifled by the console. However, it's not stifled by the developer either. Innovation is stifled by the one real factor: the publisher. Publishers provide the financial backing and it's due to this that they have the final say in a game's creation process. Why is it that every iteration of Call of Duty is substandard repeats of the previous game? Why is it that so many triple A titles have seemingly out of place multiplayer tacked on? Why are so few publisher backed games easily categorized and have such little distinction between them while the indie selection of games is so massively diverse? That's how console titles are being held back, not by their developers, but by those publishers who do not care to take risks when they have far more than sufficient financial security to do so. However that's in the realm of innovative game mechanics and gameplay. What I was speaking about in the post you were referring to was advancement in aesthetics, i.e. graphics.

My point stands completely that consoles are holding back PCs graphically. As I said before, developers that develop multiplatform games do so with a number of limitations in mind that are nowhere near the level of performance capable of a mid range gaming PC. This is why even the ultra settings for a number of games can be handled by an upper mid range gaming PC and still achieve a 60 fps frame rate, because developers use their resources to develop the game at a certain minimum (i.e. that of consoles) and working with such low tech hardware doesn't allow them to push the envelope anymore. New programming techniques and graphical effects that develop over time are a result of developers being able to pool a large amoint of resources and time together. Since publishers aim for the console market, they do not pay for developers to research and discover demanding new graphical effects since the hardware has largely reached its limit.

If you need proof of this, look no further than 2007. In 2007, 2 extremely popular games were released. The first I'll mention is Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Modern warfare was a huge milestone innovatively of course but graphically it was a small milestone. Largely developed as a console oriented game the graphics were only so visually impressive because more money was spent in art design for the game then for experimentation in graphics programming. However, lets then look to the PC for Crysis 1. At the time of Crysis 1's release, the most powerful graphics card at the time could achieve 30 fps on average on high settings at 1600x1200 with 0x AA and 0x AF. Something like that is absolutely unheard of today when Metro Last Light can be played at 2560x1440 at very high settings with very high tessellation at 4x SSAA, 16x AF, and PhysX before it must settle for 30 fps. Crysis 1 pushed the envelope because it was a game made exclusively for PC (originally, anyway) that spent a huge amount of money in the graphics pipeline. In total "Crysis has over a million lines of code, 1 GB of texture data, 85,000 shaders, and nearly three thousand pages of code".

As for console games looking as good or better than current PC games in the 8th gen console market, I highly recommend you watch a trailer for Ryse: Son of Rome or Infamous Second Son. What you can see is that while the games as a whole, may in your opinion, not look as good overall as Crysis 3 or Metro: Last Light, there are graphical effects in the game which are, objectively speaking, better. Namely, this is in the face of characters. There's an extreme level of fluidity and authenticity in these faces that simply cannot be seen on current level high end games, including Crysis 3 or Metro LL. Why? Because those 2 are console made games which have a PC version available. 7th gen consoles could never handle such dynamic and realistic faces, though the technology to implement it has been there for at least 3 or 4 years if not more. But multiplatform developers would never be allowed to develop a game for 7th gen consoles with the standard level of dynamism a 7th gen console can support, and then spend millions to use absolute cutting edge motion capture technology and more polygons just to make them available for the ultra settings on the PC version of the game. That's why consoles are holding back PCs graphically and why for the beginning of 8th gen, high, max, and even medium settings will put PCs through their paces at 1080p.