Please critic this^^

The case will likely come with a rosewill powersupply, I would greatly advise you to replace that, rosewills are not good power supplies. Also avoid refurbished hard drives, they are mechanical devices. Once they have run long enough they will die, its not IF it is WHEN, if you want the drive to last, buy new. Also the AMD FX series cpus are not very good at gaming, if this isn't a gaming machine that is irrelevant though.

Actually, FX-4170s are not that bad at gaming. While I personally would take a Phenom II 965 over an FX-4170, both will do the job. Most games are limited by the video card not the CPU. And the FX-4170 can keep up with a 550 TI just fine. Although you would have a better video card in a Radeon 6850/6870.

Ditto on the power supply however.

Better power supply choice:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Better CPU (my main objection is that FX-4s are not true quad cores, Phenom IIs are)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



I would suggest not buying a refurb hard drive, yes it will probably be fine, but just so you understand they have very short warranties (30-90 days) and obviously they have already failed for them to be refurbs.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Stronger video card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Even better:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Cheaper mobo, similar specs:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Case:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

thank you guys! I really appreciate your help!

According to TH, the 4170 is in the top tier of AMD CPUs whereas the 965 is 1 below. Just food for thought.

Yea, but I have very little faith in Don Woligroski (the man behind many of these articles), I don't agree with many of his methods, nor his conclusions. This is the guy that shows CPUs performing almost identically, and yet somehow one is not worth buying at all. When it comes down to it, his tier list is an opinion, an educated one yes, but that doesn't make him correct.

Well as I dont always rely on benchmarks, and rather go with practical experience, I build and sell PCs. Built a PC for a gentleman, had an i3 2120 and a 6850 in it. Running Unigine it outscored my 1090T and 5870 (which is a more powerful card) by 300 points under the same parameters. So practical experience is always better than benchmarks, however when I dont personally have experience with said hardware, ill defer to people who get paid to do these things. This isnt a knock on you nekulturny whatsoever   Just so far in my experience with some of the CPUs on that list, what ive seen personally an what ive read here, its pretty spot on. The other hardware in the PCs was pretty much the same, 8 gigs of 1600 RAM, SSD for OS and games etc. That not only shocked me, but impressed me as well. I love my 1090T. But when it gets pounded into the dirt by a dual core, makes me stand up and take notice ya know?

Of course.. Well.. the problem is,, synthetic benchmarks, are well.. synthetic. As I'm sure you know.

As far as Don Woligroski is concerned, and his articles, well I realize when I say his opinion is just an opinion, that doesn't make my opinions any more valid. Anyone else can draw their own conclusions.

I can say strictly from my personal experience, I own a rig with an i5-2400 in it.. This is one that people say "is totally better than my Phenom II),, well yes, as a matter of fact it is.. On paper.. in reality, the i5 rig doesn't walk on water or do any fancy magic tricks that my cheaper Phenom II can't.

I will admit there seems to be a slant towards Intel and nvidia here, in articles and forum posts, not sure why that is maybe they give them better free hardware. BUt for me and the games I play, im thrilled with the performance I get, and when my 1090T feels dated to me, itll be an Intel build, even tho I have a very soft spot for AMD  

LOL, I honestly prefer AMD for my own computers, I make no effort to conceal that. My biggest dispute against Intel is their history of illegal, ethically corrupt business practices (backed up by lawsuits, FTC and EU fines). Now at the same time I understand that not everyone really cares about anything beyond performance.

I'm not adverse to recommending Intel in builds. Basically I just have a different "CPU hierarchy" I operate under when recommending builds. I'm of the opinion a quad core is a proper choice for a modern computer system, as such I operate currently under the following:

i5-2500K>3570k>i5 (non K's)> FX-8120 (although 8120 under overclocking conditions can be just as good as i5s)>Phenom II x4s>i3 21xx