Getting a new computer built, got an estimate, need advice

And the important thing you left out is....$$$$.

(moving this to Systems)

Where are you buying this from? How much are you looking to spend?

So what do you want to know? Advice about what? how much does that cost, we can't consider value unless we know.

Actual prices for your parts list:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K 3.7GHz 6-Core Processor ($332.90 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H100i v2 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($109.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus - ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($209.89 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z RGB 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($357.89 @ OutletPC)
Storage: Samsung - 960 EVO 1TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($449.99 @ B&H)
Storage: Toshiba - X300 5TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($129.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus - GeForce GTX 1070 8GB Video Card ($599.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Corsair - Crystal 570X RGB Mirror Black ATX Mid Tower Case ($189.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair - RMx 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($109.79 @ OutletPC)
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($92.99 @ Adorama)
Total: $2583.21
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2018-03-26 19:22 EDT-0400

--------------------------------------------

So, $400 for them to assemble.

Kind of over specced in a couple of areas:
1TB NVMe SSD. You could probably go 1/2 that for the OS+application drive.
Case - $190 is a LOT for a case.

There's an easy $200 you can chop off the $2583 parts list.

Well, that exact parts list is $2,583, as above.
Vs the assembled price at MC for $2,955.11.

$400 for an afternoons worth of work on your kitchen table.
Your call.

An air cooler could theoretically make the system more reliable because you remove a failure point(leaky radiator or pump), but AIO coolers tend to not leak, so if you like the water cooler, then you might as well keep it.

Your CPU looks pretty good for gaming and video editing. Video editing is mostly CPU bound(depending on the software), so the fast CPU is good.

I think in general your PC build looks pretty good. Theoretically there are faster higher core count CPU's that would be better for video editing, but the price/performance is not as good on those and if you go too high on the core count, it won't game well. I think you have the sweet spot on your i7 8700k.

The SSD storage is pretty good

You could always look into a 1080ti GPU for gaming.

So are you, or are you not, interested in opinions?

If you are, consider high end Ryzen, for the productive work it may be faster, gaming, it'll be able to throw enough frames to the GPU to keep it busy, the Intel would give you more, but the GPU probably couldn't cope.

Personally a smaller NVME SSD would be better for the OS and key programs, and then different cheaper SSD's for working space for video editing, they'll get trashed and the CPU will be the bottleneck I'd expect so you won't benefit from the speed.

Have you included a backup solution, you'd may as well do that at this stage and consider the 'whole price'

You can do a lot more for the money, go with one of the builds above and add a 1080ti, so that when gaming across three screens you'll have the power you need.

Also, if you drop to 16gb of ram, that will be plenty for gaming. Should be enough for some production type work also. Should save an easy 150 or so.

I will say I've dealt with Microcenter in the past and they are usually easy to deal with. I would second the suggestion to go with air cooling instead of liquid. It eliminates a point of failure.

My main system has 5x SSD, totaling about 2TB. All SATA III drives.
500GB 850 EVO - OS and applications
250GB 840 EVO - photo work (lightroom, paintshop pro, etc)
250GB 850 EVO - video/CAD/3D work
960GB Sandisk Ultra II - Games, and anything that does not fit the above
120GB Kingston - scratch/cache space for all of the above applications. (This was originally the boot drive from 2012-2015)

Really large files live in the 10TB NAS box. Movies, music, downloads, backups, etc, etc.

It's not really about different drives for different lumps of storage, but more for different types of activities.

So all media that you only read (music, video etc.) gets dumped on a normal HDD, because the read speed does not matter once you are above the speed of the slowest HDD from 20 years ago, and HDD's are cheap, and media files are big.

Scratch space, give it it's own disk, you'll be hammering that disk very hard, lots of writes and lots of reads, at some point it will go pear shaped, when it does, toss it and get another one (that might take 5 years if you are unlucky), but those reads and writes will be at the same time as working with an application, historically having that app on a different disk is a good idea so that reading for instructions from the app doesn't clash with reading from the scratch file.

The OS you therefore put on a different disk with the Apps. This also means that if you need to restore from a backup, you are restoring a smaller OS HDD, if another disk fails the OS is still there, etc. there's redundancy.

USAFRet's example above is a little extreme and probably organic, in that the 250GB Evo's would at one point have been much less than 1/2 the price of a 500GB unit, and some drives will have been repurposed.

So from scratch I could see an OS and App drive, a photo/video/cad drive, and a game drive, a scratch drive (although that could be the photo/video cad drive), and then elsewhere several TB for media and backups.

Right.
Don't take my setup above as gospel. That's just how this system grew over the years. And new drives "appeared" when there was a sale.

But it's an example of "Don't put everything on one drive. Bigger is not always better"

I think larger SSD's are faster because they have more flash modules that can be accessed independently of each other. That's theoretical though, I'm sure there are limitations on the controllers that handle all the modules. I know with HDD's separating drives is very important, but I think it's less important when dealing with SSD's. You might get a small performance improvement. The scratch drive as mentioned sounds like a good idea. I like having a separate OS SSD(128GB in my case) and another SSD for video games I'm currently playing and projects I'm working on. Then I have an archiving HDD for storing files that I'm keeping, but probably won't use any time soon.

This is correct to a point, it's only write speed that changes it's about the number of channels into the controller, it starts to level off at 250GB typically.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12485/the-plextor-m8v-sata-ssd-review as an example.

That's interesting. I'm not really sure what OP should do with the drives. NVMe is faster than the SATA, but it's not the difference of going from an HDD to an SSD. If you're not interested in the technology of it, then the SATA drives are a better value.

I think it's really going to depend on your needs as far as how many drives to get and at what capacities. Separate drives are faster than one drive, but you won't be simultaneously using all the drives(unless you use a RAID setup). It's important to divide things up based on what programs will be used at the same times and which ones won't. You probably won't game and edit videos at the same time, so that's okay on the same drive. You probably will use video editing software while using the videos, so those should be on separate drives.

For example, your OS might be writing a small 50KB file on it's drive, your video editing software could be reading a video from your second drive at a sequential speed using all the bandwidth, and then the video editing software could be running from the third drive which may be requesting a few files while it's accessing the video file.
With HDD's the sequential portion of reading the video file would be much faster since the drive is not having to stop the sequential read to read/write files for the OS and program. SSD's do have a faster sequential speed, but it's not as drastic as Hard drives. You would probably get some performance increase by keeping video files on a separate drive, but the OS and software could probably go on the same one because they won't be needing the drive for very long to read/write files.

There are ways that you can manage your files to get a little bit more speed out of it. My reason for separating the OS was for system stability. In the past when I used Hard drives, I felt like there was OS instability when programs would pull the entire bandwidth of the Hard drive. My first SSD was for just my OS because I could not afford a bigger one for other things. When I upgraded to a 500GB SSD, I kept my old one as well because there was no point in getting rid of it since it works fine and adds 128GB of SSD storage to my computer.

The reason why I'm saying that is because you can pick whatever capacities for the drives you want since you have enough money and SSD's are cheaper than they used to be. I think optimally you would have two SSDs. One for OS and programs and one for video files that you're currently working with. I think only having one large capacity drive would even be okay because SSDs go from a random to a sequential operation faster than an HDD does. on an HDD you have to wait for the header to go to the correct position. Two SATA SSD's would probably be faster than the NVMe that you originally posted depending on how you configure it. And I think an HDD for storing files is a good thing

I don't know if video editing software lets you do this(and I could be wrong), but I think if you could read your video off one drive and then save the edited file to another it could be faster. I don't know how those programs queue the data, so it might not make any difference. If it could get some data from the original file into RAM while it's writing the new file, then it should be faster to process. I'm assuming that the program breaks the original video into chunks to edit it rather than putting the entire video into RAM at the same time. *disclaimer* I could be completely wrong about this, I know very little about how video editing software handles data.
It might be worth testing a few softwares to see if that leads to any performance increases.

I think you could upgrade to a GTX 1080ti for the same price if you save a little on the storage and go with less RAM. if you end up going with less RAM as mentioned by someone else, you'd save a lot since RAM prices are high right now.

More RAM is only better if you actually need that much. If you have 32GB, but your PC never needs more than 12, then the extra 16GB will not improve performance at all. If you get less RAM, opt for 2 sticks of 8GB, so you can upgrade later if needed.

You may want to ask about warranties on the parts when they assemble it. I think you usually need proof of purchase to use warranties and a lot of times specific companies will want you to register the part within 30 days or so in order to get the warranty. Your warranty should be by part not for the whole system. If they offer a warranty for the system, I would recommend just using the warranties that come with the parts. They're usually pretty good.