First time gaming PC build

I'm not sure an R9 280X will fit in that budget.

You might want to consider a 270X or 280 and use the cost savings for better CPU/PSU/case.

If planning to overclock much - I would advise against the small form factors. The close quarters makes the extra heat from OCing hard to deal with (in some cases), plus there is sometimes a cost premium to get a small form factor case compared to a typical ATX.

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/3ofa7
Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/3ofa7/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/3ofa7/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor (£166.79 @ Aria PC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler (£25.45 @ Scan.co.uk)
Motherboard: ASRock Z87M Extreme4 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£92.09 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance LP 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory (£70.56 @ Scan.co.uk)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk (£59.95 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£35.94 @ Aria PC)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 280X 3GB Video Card (£196.98 @ Aria PC)
Case: Aerocool StrikeX-GT Black ATX Mid Tower Case (£49.00 @ CCL Computers)
Power Supply: XFX ProSeries 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply (£99.42 @ Aria PC)
Total: £796.18
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-04-08 17:24 BST+0100)

1 - He said 600-700, not 800
2 - He said Euros, not pounds lol

''1 - He said 600-700, not 800 2 - He said Euros, not pounds lol ''
well i know that but... where it can buy in euro ? i tried to do research in deutschland and italia ... but nothing in ireland
and the parts i find in euro doesnt reflect what is the best for him...
give me a place to buy and i will do a rig for you

To begin with, you REALLY should not go for such a cheap CPU with such a beast of a GPU. Also, I would never recommend getting an AMD CPU. They generate too much heat, draw too much power and are generally unreliable. With an R9 280X the absolute minimum of a CPU in my opinion is the Intel Core i5-4570.

1. and 2.
While choosing a motherboard, the most important thing is to get a motherboard with the right socket. Intel Core i5-4570 is for FCLGA1150 socket. ASUS is said to make the best and most reliable motherboards. If you want to be able to overclock well, you will have to have a motherboard with a Z87 chipset AND an unlocked processor (i5-4570 is locked, but there is an unlocked version i5-4570K). Remember, though, that overclocking usually gives only around 9% FPS increase (not really noticeable) and it voids your warranty for the overclocked component (unless you have your PC built and overclocked by a company which gives warranty for the entire build). And again, with such GPU and CPU you'll want to have a more expensive motherboard (at least 130€). The rest about choosing motherboard is not extremely important, it just goes down to looks and the ports on the back panel. Here is the list of ASUS m-ATX and m-ITX motherboards with FCLGA1150 socket: http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/Intel_Platform_Products/

3. Well, as for cases there is so much to choose from that it is really hard to just say it like that... If you're picking m-ATX or m-ITX motherboard because you want your computer to be small, then Corsair: http://www.corsair.com/en/cases and Bitfenix: http://www.bitfenix.com/global/en/ produce the best small cases. But with such price limit you might want to get something from Zalman: http://www.zalman.com/global/product/CategorySecond_Pic.php?categoryname=Cases&categorySecond= or Cooler Master: http://www.coolermaster.com/ (awesome performance for price ratio). Just make sure the case you pick is compatible with all the other components you choose.

4. The r9 280x is so powerful and consoles have such outdated graphics compared to PC's, that I think it is going to keep up even with PS5 graphics. XD

Hope I helped.

It has actually been tested, even though amd draws more power, it generates less heat.
I saw it in a thread somewhere on the forum, but i dont know where.
The myth comes from - More power = more heat? Which has been proven to be false.

Unreliable? Currently i have only seen people backing against and for. I dont know, but would people stop if it was super unreliable? probably. Amd is good, Intel is better. Thats how i see it.

thank you for coming up with a parts list, I post here often and my post will be worded like the OP, and all I'll get is a mild suggestion of combinations, he even specifically asked for a component. And then he chooses a best solution as that, even if that guy recommended things he wants, he didn't really answer the question. I am not trying to insult any one, its just funny


and this belongs right here where new users can see it, not buried in the community section that regular users use

also, what is the OP planning on doing with it? is 3GB necessary for the graphics, what resolution do you want? what games/programs? upgradeability (which this has obviously) but for the newest games?

I honestly think he won't need 3GB VRAM due to the fact that I doubt his monitor is 1440p.

I have 3gb of vram, and i am happy that i dont have just 2gb.
Today, even at 1080p, 2gb of vram easily gets eaten up. Just saying.

I would pick no lower than three in my own build.

2GB does not. If you look at VRAM usage it's more likely it's a placeholder than actual usage. Almost all games, even ones like BF4 use less than 1GB at 1080p.

Definately not less than 1gb. My usage usually goes up to 2.2, 2.3.
While 2gb might be enough today, it might not be tomorrow.
I would not go with less than 3gb.

As I said before, that is a placeholder, and not actual VRAM usage.

That is a big placeholder... link to somewhere that confirms it?

It's how the drivers have been. Games will load as much VRAM into however much you have available. If you're looking at what is being reported as VRAM usage, that's how much the game is allocating. Here are some game examples showing VRAM usage is generally around the 1GB mark, even at maxed settings. (note: most of these are demostrated using settings above 1080p; either 1200p, 1440p, or 1600p)

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/hitman_absolution_graphics_vga_performance_review_benchmark,7.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/metro_last_light_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/bioshock_infinite_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,8.html

Even from that, i would say for modern games - 2gb enough today, but pushing it and might not be enough tomorrow..
At ultra settings its about 1,5-1,8gb.

I would not personally recommend less than 3gb, but i might be wrong there, but hey.. better safe than sorry.
For a midrange-mid/high range cards, 2gb is fine. But for higher end cards, more vram is welcome.

We might not need excactly 3gb, but i believe that soon we will need somewhere in between 2gb and 3gb. Just what i think

I agree that 3GB is better future-proofing, but simply turning down AA a step takes off a big chunk of memory.

My problem with not recommending less than 3GB, is that to get that high, the cheapest card is gonna be a 280x, which is around $300 if you can even find it at that price.

In the end, we're probably both right lol I just don't want someone thinking if they have under 3GB of VRAM they will get bad performance.

Is there that much of a savings between 2GBP and 3gb? I agree that going forward, if games are already close to 2gb it might be prudent for upgrading, though I suppose that depends on OP. If you are already at 1.8 and then decide to watch a movie at the same time then I think he's better off with 3GBP if he can.

Less than 3gb is definately not indicating that the graphics is bad. the gtx 680 survived on 2gb for quite a while. But more and more requests 3gb. Where i live, the r9 280x and 770 is same price, so right there, i actually prefer the r9 280x.

We are probably both right as you say, but we think of different scenarios. Thats the difference. You think of no antialiasing where i think of high settings with AA.

Humans are different, and so are our thoughts
2gb or 3gb, depends on what the use is for, and when you would expect to upgrade.
He was talking about getting an r9 280x, and thats why i thought of 3gb.

Where i live, you can save a lot between 2gb and 4gb, but changing from amd to nvidia and vice versa, you do not spend a lot more for extra ram. I like to see it like this
300$ Nvidia - We can do it, but we want moar than moar
300$ AMD - yea whatever nvidia, we aint that efficient but we got more ram than you.

Thats how i see it, at least at the moment