I have upgraded a bit from last time and I would like to know will this be worth the $1500 bucks?
_____________________________
Intel core i7-2600k 3.4GHz 1155pin boxed CPU
ASUS p8p67-LE-V3 DDR3 Intel 1155pin Motherboard
G.skill Ripjaws-X 8gb Kit (2x4gb) DDR3
Either Gigabite or ASUS Gtx 580 PCI-E
Thermaltake Armor a90 without PSU
Thermaltake ToughPower-XT 675Watt PSU
Microsoft ms Windows Pro 64bit
LG SATA black DVD RW
Seagate 3.5" Barracuda 1TB (Will be changing to something better later)
_____________________________
So, will this be worth the cash? I am looking for specs which can be used for heavy gaming, like crysis and such. Also will be used for video-picture editing and recording. Thanks.

The Barracude is not fast, consider an additional SSD if you pick this.

The rest is good, worth the cash.

Yeah, knew the Barracuda would suck. I'll get right on that later.

WD caviar black, those are faster sata II hdd's and worth it imo

Thanks for the input, I'll look into it.

I never really did figure out the differences in hdd's. I have 2 of the 1TB barracudas(for 5 years now) and I've never had a single problem with them. On the other hand, in the past year my brother has gone through 3 different Caviar blacks. I just find it that seagate is the most reliable.

I would go with the ASUS gfx card. They're products are very reliable in my memory.
I have the Ripjaw ram, wouldn't say it's better or worse than any other ram. it's hard to tell the difference with it.

I dont know if it's changed any since my graphics card, which requires a 700w power supply under load, but you may want to think about upgrading from the 675w.

Hmm, I'll google some stuff and see what I get. Thanks for the information.

the difference with seagate and western digital (aside from reliability which is mainly opinion based) is the fact that the caviar black series uses dual processors to increase performance where as seagate only uses a single processor. for any computer this decreases load times (not like an ssd but still cheaper and you can raid them for ssd performance)

i have a seagate barracuda 320gb 16mb cache drive that only gets peak read of 70mb/s and average of 45mb/s where as my 750gb 32mb cache wd caviar gets a peak read of 120mb/s and average of 90mb/s i'm not kidding on that either.

the write speed on my caviar is faster than the average read of the seagate as well which means you can transfer a file from caviar to caviar faster than you could from a seagate to caviar or vice versa

i would assume though that drives with an equal cache would be slightly closer in performance but i still couldnt see a seagate barracuda getting more than 60mb/s on average.

this makes a big impact in gaming when you want to run background applications as well, running windows media player on a seagate with a game open causes some lag ingame where as on my WD caviar it does not lag,

same goes with ingame recording. the caviar will be better suited for that

just a little heads up in that category. i've never had a problem with either WD or Seagate but either way WD and Seagate have 3-5 year Warranties as well

Ah, that you for the detailed information, I think I will go with the WD instead. As I will be doing most of the things you said would lag with the seagate. Again, thanks mate.

no problem, just trying to help out all electronics manufacturers will have some bad batches of devices but with hdd's you can almost always rma them if they go bad as the warranty wont have been expired by the time they do unless you've had it for a long time in which case it might be a good idea to upgrade anyway.