paging setsul

you might want to look into getting an nvidia card instead of amd and maybe spending some extra money getting an ssd. No idea what your budget is however so....

avoid asrock, you can have ASUS B85M-G or MSI H97M-E35 for about same price
rest should be ok

If you'd like to upgrate that setup further you should probably get a more powerful PSU. 450 watts won't be enough in near future.

any suggestions on a nvidia card?

so i swapped the motherboard for the asus.
can't find a cheap 4460k.

i swapped it for a Corsair VS550 (550 watt)

What is your budget? Are you willing to put a little extra into it?

Edit: Do you have a PCPartPicker build? Having trouble budgeting it on my end.

my budget is 650 euros at most. Now i'm lokking at 644 euros.
so i guess im almost at the top of my budget :3

i'm using a dutch online shop

Oh, alright.

I'd recommend the gtx 960 over the 270x, slightly better performance and it's cheaper in my region, not sure about the Netherlands, however. Go with Western Digital over Seagate, as Seagate has a tendency to fail quicker, and Western Digital is just a few euros more (I'd recommend a Blue or Black 1TB, Greens are slow). Also, go with what deguCZ said and pick up the ASUS motherboard, ASRock has high failure rates. If you can spare some additional budget, pick up a -k Intel CPU and an aftermarket cooler, you'll get more performance out of the build with overclocking.

well the 960 costs 50 euros more for me so i can't afford that.
what exactly is an aftermarket cooler?
and an unlocked cpu is too expensive for me :((

The aftermarket cooler is only if you're overclocking, the fan that comes with the Intel is fine if you're not. Go with the 270x if it's that much cheaper, the performance gain isn't big enough to warrant going out of budget. Otherwise definitely pick up the Asus board and WD hard drive, it'll save you time, effort, and money down the road.

okay Thanks.
i did change the mobo for the ASUS and the HDD though.
thanks for your help!

if anyone has any additional suggestions i would be glad to hear them

wheres your case or do you already have one?

#1
Could you link the shop so I can use the exact prices?
Have you considered ordering from multiple shops, it might be cheaper.
Also stay away from the Corsair VS series.
What are you going to be using the PC for?

#4
Why would you avoid ASRock?
Ah, the 4460K. Do you mean the i3-4460K, i5-4460K or i7-4460K? They are what I call "existencially challenged". They are very hard to obtain due to not existing.

#5
What do you think he's going to upgrade to that calls for a 550W PSU?

#10
Source on WD vs Seagate failure rates?
Source on ASRock failure rates?

tbh seagate makes good drives. I have 2 and they work great. wd blues on the other hand were unable to format on my setup for some reason

https://azerty.nl/winkelmandje/winkelmandje/?legen=1&product%5B478347%5D=1&product%5B683532%5D=1&product%5B621783%5D=1&product%5B649182%5D=1&product%5B739465%5D=1&product%5B624217%5D=1&product%5B648595%5D=1&product%5B528532%5D=1

= link to my shopping cart.
haven't thought about ordering from several shops as azerty.nl is one of the most trusted dutch shops.

about the asrock: idc imo, in reviews they're both good, i might stick with the ASUS unless you mcan give me a good reason not to :3

well i might want to upgrade my graphics card when I feel like replacing it so it might just be some buffer idk.

I wanna use it for gaming mostly

@Setsul
What do you recommend instead of the Corsair VS?

Be Quiet! System Power 7 or Pure Power L8 or Corsair CX430M if you want a semi-modular PSU.

okay thanks i'll look into that when i have the time :D

i'm gonna use it for gaming mostly. all sorts of games i guess

If you aim 4 300 frames in TF focus on your CPU now and your GPU you can buy when the $$$ comes around. I recommend the 4690K, I can get it to run at 4.6 without any voltage upticks or aftermarket fans. Its important to get quality hardware, especially the CPU, the 22nm model is the go - to for right now

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/HDDFailures-BB1.jpg

#20
If you could be a bit more precise (which games specifically?) I might be able to tell which of the options i5 + 270X and i3 + better GPU is the better idea.

#21
Unless you post a screenshot with CPU-Z and a stresstest running (preferably something like AIDA64 that shows thermal throttling) I have to call bullshit on an i5-4690K running at 4.6GHz on stock Voltage.
Also what do you mean with "the 22nm model"?

#22
I've hoped for this. I've waited so long. You're only getting the light version because of the character limit, the full version is 40,000-50,000 characters long.

Let's start with the easy part.
Do you see a line for 1TB HDDs? No? Me neither. So why do you think this is relevant?
To quote the same article:

They bought over 12,000 ST4000DM000, more than all 4TB HGST models combined.
The problem is that they are not splitting those statistics by model.
It's a shame, they started out well, How long do disk drives last?, mentioning "infant mortality", random failures and eventual wear out failure.
Then the ignored that completely in favour of clickbait titles:
Enterprise Drives: Fact or Fiction?
What Hard Drive Should I Buy? and
What is the Best Hard Drive?
As it turns out, it's bullshit.
Selecting a Disk Drive: How Not to Do Research
Backblaze: Is the Earth Flat?
How NOT to evaluate hard disk reliability: Backblaze vs world+dog

1. Their usage is neither similar to what yours will be nor to what you'd want enterprise HDDs for. They dump 45 HDDs in a storage pod (vibrations, we'll get to that later) then fill them via Gigabit over the course of tens of days and then, ideally never access them again. These are backups, they will only be read if a customers HDD(s) failed, occasionally one might be deleted and the space will be filled with new backups again, but other than that after the initial fillup they spent most of their time doing absolutely nothing. Since Gigabit is a massive bottleneck for 45 drives they don't care about speed either. In case you haven't guessed that's pretty the opposite of what a consumer does with his or her HDD. Imagine if a drive had 1/5 the failure rate but 1/5 the speed aswell. You wouldn't buy it, 5 minutes instead of 1 minute to boot? You'd go insane.
On the other side of the spectrum is enterprise. Lots of writes and reads all the time. For example the ST3000DM001 is rated for 156MB/s and 55TB/yr. That means use it 1.2% of the year at full speed and it's over. Sure that's over 4 days at full speed, enough for a consumer, but in a Server that runs and is used 24/7 it just won't cut it. Try it and write/read 400-500TB a year and then look at the failure rate. I guarantee you that enterprise HDDs rated for 550TB/yr won't care whereas the consumer HDDs will fail en masse.

2. In their analysis there are drives that are expected to fail and guess what, they fail.
What is the Best Hard Drive?
Seagate Barracuda LP average age 4.9 years, 9.5% annual failure rate.
That's the oldest HDDs they use, the third oldest HDDs are a full year younger. The failure rate is completely in line with what you'd expect. They said so themselves:

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/blog-drivestats-3-lifecycles.jpg

Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, average age 4.7 years, 23.5% AFR
The second oldest HDDs, but in this case age is not enough to explain the failure rate. But as it turns out they are known to have problems. Now look at the date of this article. November 10, 2008. And now at this one's . January 21st, 2015. 6 years and two months. Either they didn't know or they didn't care and couldn't even be bothered to upgrade the firmware. Now they wonder why those drives are failing.

Seagate Barracuda 7200.14, average age 2.2 years, 43.1% AFR
This one is a bit more complicated. The failure rate used to be ok. Then suddenly came those drives that all died after 2-3 years. But wait, that's within the 3 year warranty, that's awful. Nope. Those only came with a 1 year warranty. Seagate knew about and accepted this issue because they had bigger problems to worry about.
These are the drives that backblaze bought during the HDD shortage after the flooding in Thailand.
At that time the options were:
Not buying any drives. (Not an option for backblaze if they want to continue their service)
Buying drives at 2-3 times the price if they can get them at all since OEMs with contracts take priority. (Not an option for backblaze if they don't want to raise the price of their service)
Buying these rejects (all the good drives went to the big OEMs) with 1/3-1/2 the lifespan at fairly normal prices via drive farming and simply replacing them 1 or 2 years after production has picked up again when they fail with cheaper HDDs (since the prices continued to decrease once production was up again).

So why do only Seagate drives show these increased failure rates? Because backblaze could only get those. My gues is that others weren't available at all (at normal prices) because WD and HGST chose not to run in house platter production with mediocre quality whereas Seagate with a higher proportionate and overall amount of enterprise drives and if I'm not mistaken higher percentage of in house platter production had to take drastic measures to come even somewhat close to fullfilling its contracts. SDK and TDK couldn't possibly offset that and the prices would've been murder, so they did what they had to do and sold the rejects in consumer drives to get back the cost.

3. Backblaze doesn't really care reliability. Speed, power consumption and reliability are all far less important than the price for them. See the Seagate Barracuda 7200.11, they probably knew and bought them anyway. You can read up on the math in the register article, replacing the drives is dirt cheap. 10% failure rate means about 1% of the drives cost in labour for replacing them. So if the save 50$ each by buying the unreliable drives they still win. That's under normal conditions. So under the extreme conditions with higher markups, even if they had known about the failure rate beforehand, the 7200.14 still would've made sense and they still would've bought it.

For this reason they try really stupid things that make absolutely no sense if you care about reliability. Sometimes this fails horribly.
What Hard Drive Should I Buy?

Same story with the Seagate Barracuda Green. They all died within a year.
If you put drives in an environment the manufacturer said they are not suited for they tend to not do well. But that doesn't stop backblaze from trying.

What these statistics don't tell you: Seagate is bad
What these statistics should tell you:
If you care about reliabiliy:
a) Do not buy HDDs with known issues if they are unfixable or you can't be bothered to fix them.
b) Do not buy HDDs that aren't suited for whatever use you have in mind. HDDs aren't one size fits all.
If you care about either reliability or price:
Do not buy HDDs while Thailand is flooded.

Feel free to correct me or to object, the only reason I haven't posted more arguments is because this is already longer than the character limit for one post.

Thanks Setsul.

i changed psu's. takning the Be quiet! System Power 7 450W.
so what HDD do you recommend? as you seem to know a shitload about it :)

400W should be enough.
The Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003 and WD Blue WD10EZEX are technically very similar and pretty much identical in terms of speed. The Seagate is cheaper so that's what I'd choose. If you don't need 1TB you could a 500GB HDD to save money or an SSD instead though it'll be more expensive.

I've already got multiple builds prepared, you just have to tell me what you need.

Well i'm porbably still going to play tf2 alot. And csgo is also something i wanna start playing. But some of the new big releases are also on my mind to be played. Since i cant play those with my current pc.
But i really want a fast pc for the coming years as i'm going to university in a year so then i am going to use it for school too.

Yes, actual names instead of "some of the big new releases" would be helpful. That's what I meant with "If you could be a bit more precise (which games specifically?)".

I'll just assume that a 380 is enough, still a step up from the 270X.
i5-4590/4690 let alone K and therefore overclocking isn't happening on that budget. i5-4460 vs i3-4170 I'm going to choose the i3, with the higher clockrate there shouldn't be a difference in TF2 and other games don't need nearly as much CPU power so clockrate is king anyway.
That frees up enough money for an SSD.
The ASRock B85M-Pro3 doesn't have any PCI slots, only PCIe so if you need one we'll have to change that.

https://azerty.nl/winkelmandje/winkelmandje/?legen=1&product%5B478347%5D=1&product%5B621783%5D=1&product%5B649182%5D=1&product%5B452330%5D=1&product%5B827192%5D=1&product%5B739949%5D=1&product%5B629898%5D=1&product%5B834177%5D=1&product%5B794624%5D=1

Okay I finally bought a totally different build:

i5 4590
gtx 960 2gb Nvidia
1TB Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 7200rpm SATA3 32MB
Sharkoon VS3-S ATX
8gb Ram
Coolermaster Hyper 103
Gigabyte B85M-D2V ultra durable 4 socket 1150 PCIe3 USB 3.0 Sata3
600 watt LC-Power LC600H-12cm ATX 2.31

I hope this was a good choice in the end :3

No