Im not saying its a bad case at all, But i mean its a option that the OP can look in to to try to save the extra money to make it fit in the budget.

Also thanks for the backup on the PSU's, Makes more people aware of what they should buy the more people listen. :)

I'm going to add to the comments on the importance of a decent PSU. Don't skimp on it, it's a bad idea & you'll only run into problems & extra expenses down the road (one way or another).

I don't however think you need anything much more than a decent 500W PSU however, unless you plan to go SLI or perhaps the higher end Fermi cards which can devour the national grid & emulate the sun at the same time. Personally I like Corsair PSUs, they tend to be pretty stable, decent quality & more importantly tend to stay with specification in regards to voltage. They usually have a single albeit powerful 12V rail which is perhaps the trade-off with them, they are capable enough, they are even more power-efficient than multiple 12V rails however their potential to be dangerous in catastrophic failure is higher. Do note the keyword *potential* in that statement.

Generally stick with good brand PSUs, you know, Corsair, Seasonic, XFX & Antec off the top of my head all are often reputable in terms of PSU. Do abit of research on the PSU you're going to choose, have a look at general consensus & more importantly try to find a review which directly test the PSU.

A cheap PSU might fail , fry the motherboard , the CPU and the ram modules. It can also prove hazardous. And, last but not leasr, it will probably come with very brittle / poor quality connectors.

Add to that that :

1) PSU power output somehow decreases over time due to capacitors ageing. Cheap psus tend to age very fast. Hence the interest of 80 bonze / silver / gold ratings.
These will age too but the process will be so slow that the rig will be obsolete by the time you feel it

2) Power ratings of cheap PSUs are possibly calculated by some uneducated monkeys.
I mean their understanding of what 600 W means might differ widely from the common sense.

3) heat management might be an issue too

However, I don't think one needs to systematically opt for the top-of-the range 100 usd+ PSUs. OCz, Thermaltake or Corsair prpose very decent 500-600W modular, 80 certified PSUs for 60-80 USD.

I think modular psus are a +. Sata connectors tend to be brittle and are much easier to replace on modular psus. And the cabling is much neater, helping heat management and making maintenance simpler

A shame new cables can't be found easily, I've had to resort to splitters and molex-sata adapters to get power to all my drives. The cable management point is perfectly valid though.

Alright, so what I've got so far:

--Start with the processor, motherboard, and PSU, the three things you definitely shouldn't skimp on.
--Go for a somewhat larger HDD (though I still don't see how ANYONE could need more than 250 Gb of internal HD memory...)
--The more RAM, the better. Not that I didn't already know this, but good to keep in mind.
--AMD is probably more cost efficient for what I want to do.
--The case I found was a hell of a deal. Find one similar when I do buy.

Anything else major at the moment? The more I look over this, the more I think I might just start buying the damn thing piecemeal and assemble it as I get the parts.

1. Any amount of ram over 6GB is overkill unless you run graphical/etc development software., and 2. Lots of movies, games, etc will use up 250GB pretty quick.....plus 1TB drives are very cost efficient these days. Trust me. I've used 250GB of space within 4 months of buying my last PC.

I guess the reason that 250 Gb sounds fine to me is because I'm a very tactile person. I like to touch things, to take them apart and put them back together, and so on, so when it comes to movies and music, I like to have physical copies of my media rather than digital. Sure, my roomie loves her digital movies, but I don't have ANY digital copies of movies, preferring to have the cases and all, and while I have over 100 Gb of music, if I had the choice of having it digital or physical I'd take physical any day.

When I watch a movie, it isn't just "turn it on and let it play." I enjoy the process of going up to my movie shelf and browsing the titles, considering what covers catch my eye that day and what genres feel right at the moment, running my finger along the spines, reading the backs over and again, as I try to choose, then when a title has been selected popping open the case, sliding the disk/cassette into its player, and listening to the hum as the equipment reads the media and brings it up for me to enjoy.

The same with music: I have a decent, though not by any real means impressive, collection of vinyl, eight tracks, and cassettes, not to mention CDs from all over the world. Part of the joy of listening is deciding which media to peruse, and the sensation of the different types in my hands. The crisp snap of a jewel case as you pop it open, she shaky whirr of an eight track as it starts, the crackle of a record and the ability to literally FEEL the music on the surface of the platter, it's all a part of the experience I don't really care to give up. Even games are similar. As much as I love GoG, I do miss the feeling of searching my shelf for JUST the right game, sliding in the CD or popping in the floppy, and going to town.

Tactile sensations can be fun but i'm more of a use your time as best as possible kinda guy....well usually anyways.

Even if you only install games, though, your space can be used up just installing a dozen or so games when some new games go into 10GB+. Plu there's the fact that bigger than 2TB is too expensive per MB right now and too small isn't cost effective either.

Sorry don't have time to read the whole thread at the moment but I'd spend a bit more and a gtx460 at least.

Stop that... 6 GB suggests a top end efficiency based on an i7 (1366) board which supports triple channel DDR3 and must then be loaded with 3 sticks.

This board will be AMD or Intel i5 based on the needs and specs outlined maked 4GB the so called most you'll ever need...

Except it isn't.

Win7 64 blows the roof of the old RAM limitations and now makes multitasking far faster and more efficient. You rightly mentioned graphical development but everything else is making inroads toward being able to benefit from the RAM overhead... and soon enough, games will too.

But even if we are talking about Office apps, more RAM is great when you need to work on a massive document and you are drawing elements into that doc from an open web browser with a multiple tabs, a spreadsheet, a database, and you are running an MP3 player, an instant messenger, an email app and a widget that makes a kitten which plays with virtual yarn on your screen... (maybe that last one is just me)

Plus, when you look at performance by the dollar, RAM is still the best value for increasing performance.

I have to say, the 8GB I'm running with my i5 750 makes this machine a helluva lot sweeter to run that the similar 4GB machines I use at the university. That's probably kind of anecdotal because my rig is better all around, but I gotta believe a high ceiling with my RAM is giving me the most edge.

1. 6GB can be done dual channel with 1GB x2 and 2GB x2 respectively. Also, again....many here have even told me that over 6GB is pushing it currently unless you run intensive software. I am guessing this isn't the case here.

As such 6GB should be good....and if needed it can always be upgraded later on when prices drop even further.

Well, you are right. I stand corrected. I was assuming equal sticks. Mathematically, however, you can do 6 in dual channel DDR.

My bigger point, however, is put forth because I'd rather overshoot the mark and have greater breathing room when I need it that to meet the baseline requirement and wish i had more later. I've always given myself more RAM and more storage because I've always found that those are the two areas where I will most quickly hit a wall.

My older AMD 6000 dual core chip is inferior to my newer Intel i5 750 when you benchmark them... but in wholly practical terms, the difference in time the two take to render a 20 MB graphics file isn't a difference that makes or breaks my ability to get work done in a reasonable time. If I had not had the funds to build a whole new machine, I'd have just added more RAM to my old AMD box and voila, I would have a noticeable performance bump.

That is why I advocate on the side of more when it comes to RAM.

Having an abundance of RAM isn't going to make a difference unless you're multitasking with heavyweight applications. Professionals that use software which requires such amounts of RAM already know how much RAM they need. Everyone else will probably be able to get by with 4GB, and I'm guessing that 6GB would not provide a noticeable difference for them. I think the days of adding more RAM and seeing magical performance boosts have died down quite a bit.

Yes often bigger can be better but again some times it is best to err on the side of being frugal. Like one person on a gamer forum I visit that said(and also proved btw) that he had bought 16GB of DDR3 just to play some games and use the internet and watch movies. While to a few this would be cosidered good future proofing, many users there wisely informed that user of the sad facts: That 16GB was too much for general use and that it was too pricey in terms of $/MB-GB gained.....and also that it would have been wiser to get less ram and then eventually add more in as prices dropped and better ram came out.