Questions regarding my PC build

Well firstly the SSD, an SSD will improve launching program speeds, boot times, reading and writing speed and generally improve the speed of your computer. It won't do much in games apart from maybe allow them to save slightly quicker, but if you're like me (a person who likes quick boot times) then an SSD is for you. After I bought my SSD my pc booted in around 20 seconds from the first screen.

You will get great performance whilst playing those games listed. The GTX 970 is perfect for 1080p and you should be able to max out most of those games and still get over 60 fps.

Finally I have sticked with the Intel stock cooler with my overclocked Intel i5-4690k and it's never gone above 650 degrees! You can buy another cooler, but for me the stock cooler is fine at the moment.

Hope this helps

Well firstly the SSD, an SSD will improve launching program speeds, boot times, reading and writing speed and generally improve the speed of your computer. It won't do much in games apart from maybe allow them to save slightly quicker, but if you're like me (a person who likes quick boot times) then an SSD is for you. After I bought my SSD my pc booted in around 20 seconds from the first screen.

You will get great performance whilst playing those games listed. The GTX 970 is perfect for 1080p and you should be able to max out most of those games and still get over 60 fps.

Finally I have sticked with the Intel stock cooler with my overclocked Intel i5-4690k and it's never gone above 650 degrees! You can buy another cooler, but for me the stock cooler is fine at the moment.

Hope this helps

I'm just the opposite. An ssd is the last on my to do list. Even for an os drive you'll want a 120/128gb model. 240/256gb models of the same drive generally have better performance. Aside from initial boot speed, program launch times - unless you're doing heavy i/o disk transfer activity (which most people aren't) the ssd doesn't do squat for fps. They're still pretty pricey for the size and current games are quite large. Many are 50gb+ in size. Factor in some 'breathing' room, you don't want an ssd filled to capacity. Since it's unlikely to fit very many games on an ssd (that's affordable to most, 256gb or smaller), say you use an ssd for the o/s and hdd for the games. You're right back where you started and games won't load any faster.

My personal experience, ssd's are nice. I wouldn't say don't get one at all. If on a budget, I'd budget it last. I upgraded a workstation from an hdd to ssd for o/s and applications. It's a little faster booting, as in only by a few seconds. My other rig which runs only a 7200rpm drive boots full to desktop from full 'off' (hard boot) in 8 seconds or less. I see the desktop in around 5-6 seconds. Large programs like photoshop and illustrator load a little faster, but I don't sit there loading and closing and reopening programs all day. I open them and use them. Most typical user activity calls to the drives in small bursts, which means the significant sustained file transfer speeds aren't that noticeable. If they are, someone's probably using a bunk hdd. The biggest performance boost I saw was loading windows itself, it loaded much faster during installation and the unpacking of files. How many times does someone install their o/s on a regular/normal use basis? The performance of an ssd isn't terrible but had I not gotten my 240gb on sale for $60 I likely would've felt ripped off. It's just not the night and day it's made out to be, at least for the work I do. If someone was using multiple ssd's and using one as a source disk and the other as an output for video transcoding, it might make more impact.

Good luck on your build, hope it goes well

I wasn't saying not to buy an ssd, just relating my personal experiences. Advice is free from me lol, I just think it would be a better upgrade to save for the end of the budget. Here's one comparison of ssd vs hdd.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2048120/benchmarks-dont-lie-ssd-upgrades-deliver-huge-performance-gains.html

Most are comparing an ssd to 5400 rpm drive similar to the old ones found in laptops. Their dekstop test was a seagate 7200rpm drive. According to their numbers, boot time dropped from 62s to 23s with the ssd. Really? Who here has an hdd that boots in 62s unless it's circa 1990? 23s for an ssd? My 7200rpm hdd wd re4 boots faster than 23s on a cold boot. Less than HALF that time actually. So I find comparisons like these totally dubious.

Unfortunately this post gets a bit heated so ignore that. It's nothing more than the experience of yet another individual who used an ssd and in real world day to day usage found little improvement using the ssd over the hdd. As in is it better? Maybe..is it 'rock your world' different? Not so much. This person's using a samsung 840. Mine is an ocz vector 150 240gb with similar results. (Note that newer ocz drives are owned by toshiba and not the same problematic issue they once were).
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2323632

Other mixed experiences
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/832424-new-ssd-drive-not-much-faster.html

I watched a youtube comparison showing over 60s for a cold boot off an hdd, of course they used a 5yr old seagate. Maybe wd re4 drives are just faster hdd's? All I know is a cold boot doesn't take me nearly as long. Anything would likely be an improvement over a junk hdd taking that long. For someone like myself who isn't doing heavy i/o activities or rebooting all day long, makes little to no difference. My pc hardly gets turned off (no reason to). For sporadic use of a laptop it makes much more sense. When I open programs, I use them. I don't open/close, open/close, open/close all day long. My biggest performance bottleneck was ram limitation using photoshop/illustrator and bridge when ram usage was constantly pegged. If using up all the ram and hitting the hdd for swap file use of course it's going to bog down the pc. Does that mean it needs an ssd? An ssd would help but realizing the issue was ram running out, increasing ram to 16gb was much more beneficial (and cheaper).

Well you can move the Windows 7 to your computer, but you would have to wipe the other computer's drive and possibly phone Microsoft. If you do it like this it's not illegal. However this will only work if that computer didn't have Windows 7 when it was bought, Windows 7 must be installed from a disc I mean. Finally there are 2 types of Windows 7 discs you can buy, one which means you can reinstall it on another motherboard and the other which has to stay with that one motherboard to work. I have a feeling that the OEM copy cannot be used on a different computer, so you would need to byu another Windows 7 disc.

Next a double adapter should be fine, as long as it is a reliable brand and doesn't overheat. They can cause fires because of overheating. I normally use 2 extension cables, one for my Computer and Xbox plugs. Once I turn the Computer switch on (on the extension cable) then the other extension cable turns on and my monitor, speakers and computer all turn on at the same time. Hopefully you understand what I mean.

You could use an extension cable which is surge protected, this would be safer. But it's not neccessary, it's good to use one though.

Now finally the monitor. First of all the refresh rate isn't 5ms, that is the response time of the monitor. Your refresh rate should be anywhere from 30-60Hz depending on how old the monitor is. If it's not 1080p and you have a 970 then you need a new monitor. For games unless you have a really bad or really good GPU you don't run games at under 1080p and above 1080p. Also yes your games will be faster, but they will look terrible and having a monitor under 1080p is a waste of a 970 so try to save up for a decent 1080p monitor.

Example of a good 1080p:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/BenQ-GL2460HM-24-inch-Multimedia-Monitor/dp/B00AQBWMZ4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435211809&sr=8-1&keywords=BenQ+GL2460HM

This is my monitor which I have had for above 2 years now, it is a great 1080p 60Hz, 2ms response time monitor.

Hope all of this helps