Geforce GTX 650 1gb run on 480w Seagate PSU?

Yeah your fine its no problem.

Uhmm you do realize that upgrading your GPU on a APU system will NOT improve the gaming because the APU is the problem right? A APU is a low cost, low end, low power combination CPU+GPU to make cheap PCs for the masses (the 90% that just Facebook, Email and Flapping Bird) NOT made for gaming. Further as the APU motherboard ONLY works for APUs, you couldn't even upgrade to a FX CPU, the computer is a dead end cheap quick solution.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Core-i3-3220-CPU-Review/1646/19
This is the finding on the 'BETTER' APU than the OP has against the OLD i3-3xxx CPUs, not the current Haswell i3-4xxx CPUs sold.

"that depending on the game, you won’t be able to achieve a good frame rate (i.e., a good gaming experience) even when lowering all image quality settings to their minimums. From the games we ran, we achieved a terrific frame rate on StarCraft II (almost 80 frames
per second), a good frame rate on FarCry 2 (around 40 frames per second), and a playable frame rate on DiRT3 (36 frames per second). However, on Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2 the frame rate was below 20. "
**NOTE THE YEAR on these 'games' tested, they are NOT COD:Ghosts, AC4, BF4, etc !!**

"Similarly to what we learned with the previous generation of AMD APUs, the A10-5800K lags behind its competitors in general processing performance. The Core i3-3220 is faster than the A10-5800K for day-to-day operations."

So you would have to replace all the components except the Hard Drive and DVD player (probably even the case since it MAY not fit parts NOT made by the Manufacturer), which really means a whole new PC. A 'gaming PC' able to play 2013 and forward games, at 'High Settings, 1920x1080 aka 1080p display, 45FPS during 64man maps' is no less then $700, Ultra 50FPS minimum standard is no less then $1000. If these are 'too expensive' then you joining the large number of people buying consoles where a new Game released 10 years (see the PS3/360) after the console was made still works perfectly as advertised with no need to 'upgrade' because the Videocard/whatever can't "achive frame rate" to make it more then a slideshow.

Uhmm you do realize that upgrading your GPU on a APU system will NOT improve the gaming because the APU is the problem right? A APU is a low cost, low end, low power combination CPU+GPU to make cheap PCs for the masses (the 90% that just Facebook, Email and Flapping Bird) NOT made for gaming. Further as the APU motherboard ONLY works for APUs, you couldn't even upgrade to a FX CPU, the computer is a dead end cheap quick solution.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Core-i3-3220-CPU-Review/1646/19
This is the finding on the 'BETTER' APU than the OP has against the OLD i3-3xxx CPUs, not the current Haswell i3-4xxx CPUs sold.

"that depending on the game, you won’t be able to achieve a good frame rate (i.e., a good gaming experience) even when lowering all image quality settings to their minimums. From the games we ran, we achieved a terrific frame rate on StarCraft II (almost 80 frames
per second), a good frame rate on FarCry 2 (around 40 frames per second), and a playable frame rate on DiRT3 (36 frames per second). However, on Battlefield 3 and Borderlands 2 the frame rate was below 20. "
**NOTE THE YEAR on these 'games' tested, they are NOT COD:Ghosts, AC4, BF4, etc !!**

"Similarly to what we learned with the previous generation of AMD APUs, the A10-5800K lags behind its competitors in general processing performance. The Core i3-3220 is faster than the A10-5800K for day-to-day operations."

So you would have to replace all the components except the Hard Drive and DVD player (probably even the case since it MAY not fit parts NOT made by the Manufacturer), which really means a whole new PC. A 'gaming PC' able to play 2013 and forward games, at 'High Settings, 1920x1080 aka 1080p display, 45FPS during 64man maps' is no less then $700, Ultra 50FPS minimum standard is no less then $1000. If these are 'too expensive' then you joining the large number of people buying consoles where a new Game released 10 years (see the PS3/360) after the console was made still works perfectly as advertised with no need to 'upgrade' because the Videocard/whatever can't "achive frame rate" to make it more then a slideshow.

I understand about the OnChip GPU being negated by a card, but even with a seperate card, but really that has nothing (rendering) to do with what I am talking about. Older games your right, it was just alot of rendering of graphics, get a bigger card, better rendering pretty much negating the CPU.

With 2013 that changed though and some people aren't seeing it. Let me show you a couple of charts from BF4 for example.
Alpha:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battlefield%204%20Alpha/test/bf4%20intel.jpg
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Battlefield%204%20Alpha/test/bf4%20amd.jpg
Beta:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_Beta-test-bf_4_intel.jpg
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4_Beta-test-bf_4_amd.jpg
FINAL: http://oi42.tinypic.com/66yc7r.jpg

As you can see, as the code was more and more finalized the demands increased more and more on the... CPU.. not GPU. Because the physics and other 'under the hood' code had NOTHING to do with rendering (the GPU only job). It requires DATA PROCESSING, which is solely the CPU job. Now if you look at the IMPACT the game has on much more powerful CPUs you can see "how much" of the CPU is being slammed to do this processing (look at the poor FX-4/6 chips!!OMG). Want more proof? Simply search these forums when BF4 was 'released' and look at all the FX-4/6 owners WHINING "BF3 works perfectly fine on my system but BF4 doesn't work for *&^%". Why? Because, look at how much demand is put on those BETTER CPUs.

In summary, casual (Angry Birds/Plants vs Zombies) you really dont' need much for GPU, so upgrading won't do 'alot' for those sorts of games. Old games can benefit from a GPU increase, but depending on how much of a GPU (say a Titan or R9) your going to have this overly expensive card sitting there twiddling its thumb much of the time because the APU is too underpowered to keep up with the HIGHER performance demand of the GPU (aka bottleneck or "why does my GPU only show 30% utilization but my A8/A10 shows 80-90% utilization?").
Looking at 2013 games forward (that means COD Ghosts2 when it is made, or BF5, AC5, etc.) the demands on the CPU is necessary, to make the game 'work', and can't be 'bypassed' with a 'bigger GPU' to solve the issue. More cores are being used, and unfortunately / fortunately the iCore HyperThreading does the best job of 'threading' or acting as traffic cop to the data processing to maximize performance, something AMD refuses / can't seem to resolve. Many many tests show the AMD with more 'real cores' basically stumble over each other because there is no solid 'thread management' like Hyperthreading, so the 'more cores' causes 'more confusion' rather than 'more performance' LIKE IT SHOULD over the less 'real cores' Intel CPUs use (i7 has only 4 'real' cores, a FX-8xxx has actually 8).