Thoughts on Fury X + [New] Dell 1440p monitor. Is worth it for 3D rendering?

Have you compared benchmarks between the FX-8350 and the i7-4790K?

I know there's a price difference, but keep in mind you should be comparing TOTAL cost of build not just the CPU cost.

Benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/3

*Does the FX-8350 win any benchmarks?

You have a combination of multi and single-threaded programs there. For example, Photoshop I don't think is well threaded a lot of the time so it would be do a lot worse with the FX-8350.

I don't have other benchmarks like MAYA but I'm not seeing any where the FX wins so far.

Other:
1) If you get the i7 then I'd go with the Noctua NH-U12S. The U15 can also have issues with DDR3 memory clearance so be careful buying DDR3 memory if you buy it.

The U12S with the i5-4570K@4.2GHz for example spins at 300RPM idle and is barely audible at 100% load.

2) DDR3 memory 16GB:
If doing any VIDEO editing may want to get a bit more.

3) 1TB HDD - why not just get a 2TB for the small price difference?

4) W10 64-bit - Do you require the PRO version instead of HOME? (look up the differences but in general probably not)

5) MOBO - if you get an i7 CPU, then you can spend less money on the motherboard. It looks like you want to overclock a lot but since the i7 CPU wins the benchmarks why even go that way?

6) MONITOR - I know it's more money, but you may wish you had a 2560x1440 monitor instead with all the information you get with those programs.

7) SSD's:
Why do you have two of them? Is one for a scratchpad for video editing?

Budget...

Yes, the i7-4790K is about $170 more which is a lot but it's also a better CPU. You also invested a lot in the graphics card which may be problematic if your CPU is slow that it's not feeding the GPU.

(You also have spent more money to support the FX-8350. About $35 more for a cooler, and $80 more than the Z97-E for the motherboard which would work just fine. That's $115 right there.)

There are also lots of times when the GPU doesn't help much or when a top-end GPU isn't much better than one far cheaper.

It's hard to find benchmarks for your scenario but based on ones I've looked at this feels like a pretty unbalanced system. I think you'd be far better off with something like THIS:

i7-4790K + R9-380

I'm going to put together a build, then I have to go. Feel free to ignore if you want.

Agreed (and they look nicer). My boss has a pair of 27" 1080p screens, and IMHO 27" is too large for 1080p at arms-length (starting to look a little coarse). I have a pair of 25" 1440p screens (U2515H's - ~30% cheaper than the 27" option!), and everything looks much finer - more like a printout than a monitor in terms of smoothness. The Dell U2715H the OP listed is indeed 1440p, but the Benq isn't.

*OK, I didn't notice the other MONITOR until just now...

Never mind...

I didn't even realize you had already had the computer. I though you meant it was a working build to be purchased.

Actually, I'm still confused on that since you say "finalizing" and "build I'm going after"... whatever...

Here's what I'd put together so it's not a total waste. Good luck:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jXMCRB

Um...
I don't know what you mean by "not really working well" because I can buy a $20 graphics card which will work just fine with any monitor, assuming it has the proper connector (like DP or dual-link DVI). I had a cheap card driving my HDTV and 1440p monitor at one point.

The ONLY other advantage of a better graphics card is the performance gains if the program can make use of the GPU.

Spending all that money on a GPU without qualifying why you need one or asking specific advice doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Also, not sure where the whole "don't ask" regarding NVidia came from either because NVidia has better driver support. So:

1) If it's NOT for performance, but just to drive the monitor then we should find out WHY your current card is problematic then fix that (software or replace with different cheap card).

2) If it IS for performance, then we should find out which programs benefit, and frankly whether AMD or NVidia would be the better choice due to if they support CUDA etc.

3) Also for performance we should find out where the DIMINISHING returns kicks in because if you're spending $450 more than say an R9-380 but getting 5% faster render times it's probably a waste of money.

So exactly WHY do you need a different video card?

1) Power issues?

2) DP not detected?
I don't understand this statement. If you turn off the monitor, do you mean you have to REBOOT the computer again or else the monitor isn't detected?

3) Monitor OFF...
Why don't you just let it go into Standby mode? I never turn a monitor off, and I don't believe your lifetime is improved by turning it off either.

4) Remote access...
You don't even need a monitor for remote access for the computer being accessed. As long as the computer is ON, or has WOL enabled so you can start it up no peripherals are needed aside from a network connection.

5) 1440p monitor:
I totally agree and I have one, and I love it. THIS is the one I currently recommend:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-monitor-pb278q

6) NVidia business practices:
I've investigated AMD vs NVidia quite thoroughly and determined that AMD is just as bad if not worse. They've completely MISLED about several things including Freesync vs GSYNC (claiming "9Hz vs 240Hz" support and that NVidia only had "30Hz vs 144Hz" and others stuff).

AMD crashed some NVidia events in poor taste. AMD made claims that they were incapable of supporting Witcher 3 and that NVidia had intentionally gimped the code to the detriment of even NVidia cards just so it would look much worse for AMD... well AMD came out with code to fix this in just TWO WEEKS and performance was almost EQUAL to comparable cards.

AMD said Mantle was going to be "open" looking like the good guys but then later when questioned closely they admitted they wanted to retain full control over the code. Not just now but forever, which is EXACTLY what they were pissed off at NVidia for with their "black box" approach (which NVidia is actually doing a good job of sorting out BTW).

Yes NVidia could look at the code but AMD wanted to plan the code and write the code so they would have foreknowledge of changes and could also tweak towards their architecture. That's not how "open source" is supposed to work.. the Mantle torch should have been a joint project or passed to a neutral 3rd party. It's a non-issue now though (and no, MS didn't implement DX12 because of Mantle).

*On the surface AMD can look like the good guy but if you dig a little deeper and do your research it's not quite so simple.

7) GPU?

Here's the tricky part, and the one I can't answer directly.

a) Write down a list of the programs you want GPU support for (Maya etc).
b) Find BENCHMARKS comparing performance and compare them.
c) If they vary significantly use the ones for the programs that you'll be using most of the time (at least for rendering time).
d) *Also note where the DIMINISHING RETURNS kicks in. I saw an Adobe Premiere benchmark that showed roughly 10% advantage using a Titan over using a GTX750Ti because most of the time it was using the CPU not the GPU.

Summary:
I hope this is clear. I'm not sure what to add, and basically it's on you to research the above performance deltas and draw your own conclusions.