HDD : Western Digitals are pretty reliable, but the Cavier Blues are not as fast as the Cavier Blacks. Samsung Spinpoint F4's will be even faster, though slightly more expensive.
Btw, that Intel Mobo is OK only if you're looking to run a system off the box. If you wanna play 'round with the settings a bit, you might wanna look at a P55 from Asus/Gigabyte/MSI etc. The H55 chipset is primarily for non-gamers looking to use the Integrated graphics of the i3/i5 Clarkdales. And Intel mobos in any case aren't exactly a favorite with the enthusiast community. So don't expect me to recommend that
The Phenom II dual core is something I'll avoid. Get a Phenom II quad core 9xx if you wanna spend a bit more, not that you'll be needing it badly for gaming. An Athlon II triple core 450 will be sufficient IMO.
The average optimal number of CPU cores suggested by the test results is 2.75, showing a clear trend towards at least three CPU cores.The question of whether the CPU or GPU is most important is easily answered. If you don't have a multi-core CPU, then upgrade it. If you have a dual-core CPU at around 3 GHz, then invest your money into a graphics card, as most games are GPU-limited. This is not something that will change with new DirectX 11 games.
Once u turn on real world Full HD + AA/AF the bottleneck is pushed back to the GPU always and unless u on a single core or dated X2 like E2xxx or A64 X2 a lot of peeps misunderstand CPU needs for gaming @@
Eg: 1920 X 1200 + AA/AF CPU scaling with GTX 460 And yes for comparison a USD $1000 i7 980X is included ^^
The Anandtech GPU bench shows how many frames per second you get in gameplay with the two processors in a variety of different popular games. (Ignore the non-game applications - scroll down to the bottom of the chart to see the benchmarks for various games like Crysis, Far Cry, etc) The Athlon IIX4 630 is faster than the 450 but still lags the i3 in most gaming benchmarks.
The AMD 450 should be fine for you, IMO, but the Core i series is a totally new chip design compared to the decade old AMD architechture and it still is faster despite having 1 less core.
But the 450 will be alright with your card and in the end in comes down to economy. The AMD 450 + mobo will cost 'bout 50-60 less than the Intel Core i3 + mobo. Your call in the end.
I kind of understood the info in the link you gave to me but barely.
Just means that when peeps buy say a $180++ GPU it is *precisely* not to game on such settings like 'medium quality' and at 1680 x 1050 no less I would study real world game benches to judge if a CPU really is holding back the card like my examples: E2140 and by extension any X2 4000+ Athlon64 most certainly does hold back a GTX 460 Full HD/AA/AF