Some of this is gonna be .....ooh maybe not a good idea..... rest will be , maybe ya wanna consider alternatives.
The i7-3930 will definitely top the i2500, 2600, 2700k ..... no doubt about it, it's not even worthy of discussion. The question is, is it worth the investment ? If you have a lot of disposable income ..... or if you have other uses for the machine (CAD, rendering, video editing, etc), then of course it's much easier to justify. As for gaming ....
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3077-4.html
But now that LGA 2011 has arrived, there's certainly an argument to be made for it as the ultimate gaming platform. LGA 2011-based CPUs have more available cache and as many as two more execution cores than the flagship LGA 1155 models. Additionally, more bandwidth is delivered through a quad-channel memory controller. And with 40 lanes of third-gen PCIe connectivity available from Sandy Bridge-E-based processors, the platform natively supports two x16 and one x8 slot, or one x16 and three x8 slots, alleviating potential bottlenecks in three- and four-way CrossFire or SLI configurations.
Although they sound impressive, those advantages don't necessarily translate into significant performance gains in modern titles. Our tests demonstrate fairly little difference between a $225 LGA 1155 Core i5-2500K and a $1000 LGA 2011 Core i7-3960X, even when three-way graphics card configurations are involved. It turns out that memory bandwidth and PCIe throughput don't hold back the performance of existing Sandy Bridge machines.
Where we do see the potential for Sandy Bridge-E to drive additional performance is in processor-bound games like World of Warcraft or the multiplayer component of Battlefield 3. If you're running a three- or four-way array of graphics cards already, there's a good chance that you already own more than enough rendering muscle. An overclocked Core i7-3960X or 3930K could help the rest of your platform catch up to an insanely powerful arrangement of GPUs.
To summarize, while we generally recommend against purchasing any gaming CPU that retails for more than $225 from a value point of view (sink that money into graphics and the motherboard instead), there are those of you who have no trouble throwing down serious money on the best of the best, and who require the fastest possible performance available. If this describes your goals, the following CPU is for you:
As for RAID, I have yet to see a significant performance difference in gaming with RAID . I could quote a dozen reviews and tests however and that wouldn't change what side of the fence anyone sits on with regard to this subject. Sure number differences can be shown in benchmarks, but do they in fact show a worthy ROI (return on investment) ?
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=513&Itemid=99999999&limit=1&limitstart=10
In conclusion, the idea of enjoying a RAID-0 striped array seems like a nice idea for high-performance PC hardware enthusiasts, but for twice the cost of an already-expensive product you don't necessarily receive twice the user experience. ATTO and other benchmarks may report a dramatic increase in sequential file transfer performance, but unless you're moving data on a regular basis there will be a very minimal real-world improvement over any single SSD. Ultimately I do not recommend RAID-0, regardless of HDD or SSD used.
Even SSD performance expectations compared to HD's can come up short. For example, my youngest son can boot off either his 120 GB 550 Mbps Vertex 3 Max IOPS SSD or he can boot off the Seagate Barracuda XT. The SSD boots 27% faster than the HD which sounds impressive ..... but if booting in 15.6 seconds versus 21.2 seconds has a measurable impact on his life or his computing experience, I haven't noticed it yet. Interestingly enough, loading an MMO we both play, took exactly the same time (45 seconds). With RAID 0 doubling ya chance of system loss, I think I'd be mire inclined to go with a 240 gigger.
In the chart here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-price-ssd,3070-6.html
each tier drop represents a 10% drop in performance. With the 128 GB M4 in tier 5, that would mean the Mushkin Chronos Deluxe is 1.61 % faster (1.1^5th for those thinking it's 50) than the M4.
Personally, I am not a fan of the H series coolers from Corsair.....very noisy and little if any performance advantage over the better air coolers with more risk of failure. As its says here, air cooling provides way more cooling the Sandy Bridge could ever need.
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=674&Itemid=62&limit=1&limitstart=5
It's almost ironic that air coolers like [the Silver Arrow] are becoming available just as processors transition to designs that may ultimately render them unnecessary; even overclocked to 5GHz, an Intel Sandy Bridge 2600K doesn't need anywhere near this level of cooling.
As for what chip set, best you read here:
http://www.ukgamingcomputers.co.uk/difference-between-h67-p67-z68-and-h61-chipsets-a-22.html
As you can see, there's little argument to be made that Z68 is going to give today's enthusiast system anything that P67 won't. If you think there is, then if ya go Z68, might as well make sure it's Gen3.
As for your plan to run twin GTX 460's, that wholly unbalances your entire build. A 1200 watt PSU could do three 580's. To my mind, the factory OC'd 560's (900MHz), which cost ya 43 cents per frame in single card config and 50 cents per frame in SLI are the best bang for the buck in the > $200 segment and the test fps per dollar supports that:
Guru3D uses the following games in their test suite, COD-MW, Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Dawn of Discovery, Crysis Warhead. Total fps (summing fps in each game @ 1920 x 1200) for the various options in parenthesis (single card / SL or CF) are tabulated below along with their cost in dollars per frame single card - CF or SLI:
$ 220.00 6950 (479/751) $ 0.46 - $ 0.59
$ 240.00 6950 Frozr OC (484/759) $ 0.50 - $ 0.63
$ 205.00 560 Ti (455/792) $ 0.45 - $ 0.52
$ 320.00 6970 (526/825) $ 0.61 - $ 0.78
$ 215.00 560 Ti - 900 Mhz (495/862)
$ 0.43 - $ 0.50
$ 340.00 570 (524/873) $ 0.65 - $ 0.78
$ 500.00 580 (616/953) $ 0.81 - $ 1.05
$ 725.00 6990 (762/903) $ 0.95 - $ 1.61
$ 750.00 590 (881/982) $ 0.85 - $ 1.53
They also easily OC another 12% to over 1000MHz. Twin 580's will get ya 10% more fps but at a cost of $1,000 versus $430-$450 (depending on brand).
Artic Silver as great thermal properties ..... but it takes 200 hours of thermal cycling to cure..... that's not 200 hours of use, that's 200 hours of time spent heating up to operating temperature and the time cooling back down. Some reviewers have estimated that as being about a year of normal use. Shin Etsu has same thermal properties but no curing issues.
KB and Mouse - I have had about a dozen different wireless KB / Mouse sets .... as of each of my 3 sons..... we all use wired now .... just not worth the battery and connection issue problems.
HD's - Of late I have been favoring the Barracuda XT's....but the new Momentus has me excited. Again, the SSD Win 7 boot time is 16 seconds and the Momentus is just 1 second behind at 17secs.
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=806&Itemid=60&limit=1&limitstart=7
Case - If I was gonna drop $300 on a case, it would be the Level 10 GT
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=843&Itemid=61&limit=1&limitstart=6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram