Budgets?
PCCaseGear only?

-HCG is good, RM is overpriced and oversized
-I don't care
-Yes and I can confirm that it is indeed a keyboard with brown switches.
-Apart from the RM, I think you're wasting money on full ATX cases and mobos and on 16GB RAM. Also if you can get a 2TB Toshiba DT for less than the Seagate do so.
-They are not headsets so yes. Don't buy headphones blind though.
-See above.

Sorry for the double post, but I think this is important.

nohats might explain why he got higher fps than me, but more importantly:
mat_queue_mode 2 still barely does anything.

Who just -fragged everything? People ask questions because they don't know the answers. There are no dumb questions.

#628
Single threaded performance is king for games. 4 threads max, so Intel Haswell i3, i5 or even overclockable (-K) i5. Just tell me how fps on what settings in which "current gen games" you want to get so I can find the right balance between CPU and GPU. No point in squeezing an i5-4690K in there when you'd be dissapointed by the performance in everything but TF2. Settings CS:GO might help aswell, although it shouldn't be the limiting factor.

#629
1. The fans spinning fast isn't AMD's fault. There's fan curves/profiles for that.
2. The 212 is a loud cooler. If you wanted a quiet cooler, you should've bought a quiet one, not a loud one.
3. Removing all other fans just means that the case temperature will rise and the remaining fans will spin faster.

95W isn't that much, with the GPU disabled (why did you even get an APU) it's even less.

Never buy tray CPUs. No cooler and no warranty.

Do you gain anything from the higher bandwidth? If not there's no reason for DDR4.

Or you know you could get a Haswell i3 + mobo for 50$ less and still get 90-100% of the performance.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4360 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($169.00 @ CPL Online)
Motherboard: MSI B85M-E45 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($85.00 @ Centre Com)
Total: $254.00
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-20 22:25 AEST+1000

By the way your old build doesn't seem to have a PSU.

DDR4 brings a lot of architectural changes, but they are only important for the manufacturing.
2133MHz are still 2133MHz, you don't have to concern yourself with how manufacturers get there.

I can't 100% confirm that your memory will run at full speed on the mobo I recommended. Officially Haswell only supports 1.5V (according to Intel) and 1600MHz, but the board does support XMP (which is Intel btw) and apparently it worked for some people. I mean you could even overclock with that board (with a K CPU), even though B85 doesn't support (according to Intel), thanks to bug abuse, and Haswell definitely has no problem with 1.65V and 3000MHz RAM. Just because it's not officially supported doesn't mean it won't work. Unofficial support is just fine.

#630
When in winter?
Broadwell-E coming in Q1 2016.

6700K > 6600K >> 5820K for gaming.
5820K > 6700K >> 6600K for streaming.

I can stream 1080p 30/60fps (60 is really pushing it with only 3.5MBits/s to work with on twitch) on veryfast with an i7-4790K. The 5820K might allow you to go down to faster instead of veryfast, but faster won't do much in terms of quality. Keep in mind that the 5820K has a lower clockrate than both the 4790K and 6700K so it's definitely less than 50% more power you're looking at. It is highly questionable that this would make the difference between being able or not being able to use faster, which takes about 2-4 times the processing power of veryfast.

In other words for streaming and gaming I think the 5820K is a waste of money.
I don't think you'd benefit from DDR4 either, so unless you need more M.2 ports with the current motherboard prices for LGA1151 I don't see the appeal of skylake either.
280$ i7-4790K from microcenter, 60$ Z87-A from newegg, 40$ for 8GB DDR3 RAM if you even need new one and that's it. Why spent more than that if you get nothing in return.

So basically what you're trying to tell me is that:
1. "Dynamic frequency scaling" increased the clockrate with 3 or 4 cores enabled, but not with only 1 or 2 cores enabled.
2. An i7-4790K at stock voltage, 4.4GHz and <30% load is thermal throttling. I doubt that would happen even with the Intel stock cooler and I'm not exactly running stock cooling.
Even if I hadn't monitored the clockrate I'd have a hard time believing that.

Of course I could redo the tests with Turbo, C1E, C3, C6/7 and EIST all disabled and monitor all cores seperately instead of just the average via task manager, but for some reason I doubt it would change anything.

Performance always increases linearly with clockrate for a deterministic algorithm.

Even if -threads 2 does nothing at all, it doesn't explain why single threaded performance increases with the number of cores.
If -threads 2 works it becomes even more mysterious. How can HT increase performance when there's 3 physical cores and only 2 threads?
Why does multithreading not increase performance on 2 cores but it does on every other possible configuration (except 1 core obviously). It works with 1 core + HT, why not with 2 cores? It works on 3 cores without HT aswell. Only on 2 cores without HT it doesn't.

Another mirror for the demo.

So I did some tests.

infinity redid his tests on windows 8.1 so I could compare the G3258 with an i7-4790K at the same speed with 2 cores and HT disabled.

CPU and overclock: i7 4790k @ 4.4GHz
Graphics Card: 780 Ti

Driver version: 340.52
dxlevel (default is 90): 81
Resolution: 1920x1080
Config: http://pastebin.com/NNwtc9f7

The goal was to find out if and why the G3258 was significantly slower than an i5.
I had a hunch that the bigger L3 cache wouldn't do much and I was right. I was getting 1-2% less fps. At first I chalked it up to the other two monitors and running a text editor and the task manager during the benchmark but that might not have been the cause, more on that later.

After I had finished all the tests I noticed that infinity's cfg used mat_queue_mode 1. So I redid all the tests and used it as an opportunity to see how much fps multithreading actually yields.

Then I tested processor/core affinity and RAM speeds. I had used 1333MHz CL9 RAM as opposed to infinity's 1600MHz CL9. Of course I could've spent time manually matching the timings, but I thought it shouldn't make much of a difference. I tested with 2400MHz CL10 later to confirm that. I was wrong. RAM speed might actually explain why I got less fps than infinity with his G3258. Going from 1333MHz CL9 to 2400MHz CL10 increased the fps by
8% with 4 cores (didn't matter if 4 physical (i5) or 4 logical, 2 physical cores (i3)), by
11% on 2 logical / 2 physical (Pentium) and by
12% on 8 logical / 4 physical (i7).

Setting affinity only hurt the performance, although I have only tested it with all cores and Hyperthreading enabled and not all possible configurations. I highly doubt that confining TF2 to 3 or less cores would help though.

On a sidenote, the second batch of tests I ran with -threads 2, since it gave the best results. The difference is minor though.

Now for the interesting and very strange part of the results.
The bulk of the gains is single threaded.
Multithreading does benefit from more cores, but not much. It gets you 18%-32% (one number inflated to 33.54% due to a bad single threaded result). Logical cores help almost as much as physical cores.
Beyond 3 physical or 4 logical and 2 physical cores diminishing returns hit hard. Combined with the fact that physical cores give only a minor advantage over logical cores that means an i3 gets you 94% of the performance of an i5. Since i3s with the same clockrate are far cheaper you could in theory even make up for the difference with faster RAM.
As expected multithreading didn't help with 1 core / 1 thread. Surprisingly it didn't help with 2C/2T either even though it helped with 1C/2T. While the second physical core helped single threaded since multithreading didn't really help (+1-2%) a true dual core with two physical cores is only 5% faster than a single core with hyperthreading. I am rather upset about this. So the answer to question if and why the G3258 was significantly slower than an i5 is:
Yes, because multithreading doesn't seem to work with 2 physical cores. Why that is, I have absolutely no idea.

Here are the statistics: http://www64.zippyshare.com/v/u1InD0Vt/file.html
And the raw data: http://www64.zippyshare.com/v/1sg9PANj/file.html

Could anyone verify these results?

tl;dr
Only Source 2 can save us now.

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.

#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.

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

Why did you decide to go with a 3 years old AMD CPU for that?

What are you going to be using it for? TF2?

They are EOL, you'll have to buy a used one.

Cheapest option would be a Sandy/Ivy Bridge i7.
It's about overclocking though. If you've got a P67/Z68/Z77 motherboard there's not enough of a performance difference to justify Skylake.
If you can't overclock it gets complicated.

#4
BCLK isn't FSB. It's also tied to PCIe so any significant overclock and you're getting stability issues. For a 5% overclock best case it isn't worth the trouble.
Depending on the motherboard you might be able to force the max turbo multiplier on all cores at all times.

Depends on the total price. If it's 10$ and 50$ no, if it's 100$ and 140$ yes.

360 is a rebrand of the 260, 370 is a rebrand of the 265.
It depends on which ressource is the bottleneck but in most games you're looking at 33-50% more fps with the 370.