as for the case, i could probably care less about. i just went with that because i thought it looked a bit better and it's really no worse than the challenger
the ram is going to be exactly the loving same, they're both ddr3 and they're both rated at 1600mhz, past that nothing is going to make any sort of difference
as for the hard drive, there's an extra $30 from rebates to use on a caviar black if that's so important
Case doesn't matter, that's user choice anyway
The ram has the same listed speed, sure but there's a reason why it's so cheap. Inferior components, less well-known manufacturer. He isn't on tight enough of a budget to necessitate cutting corners like that. Caviar black drives are noticeably faster than blue, I know my own can write 20% faster than my 750gb blue drive can and the games have noticeably faster loads. Remember that my build total was $465 as well. As for the psu, I didn't bother looking for a better deal than the evga but if people are satisfied with the one you linked that's probably the one he should get.
the i5-4670k is perfectly fine. games are starting to really take advantage of those extra 2 cores and give much better single-threaded performance than an amd processor with no loss in gaming performance. don't get me wrong, i'm getting an i3 pretty soon here but if you can afford it the i5 it is a much better option.
with a better hard drive the build is $505.94 and considering price/performance, better than what you suggested.
The i5-4670k
is perfectly fine, if you want to spend that much money on it. What I'm saying is that it's more than needs to be spent on a $500 build that probably won't be used for any compute tasks, just gaming. Both the i3-4130 and the i5-4670k have 4 logical cores, the i3-only lags behind the i5 in multithreaded applications because it has 2 physical that are hyperthreaded. In singlethreaded performance (most games are singlethreaded, unfortunately) the i3 nips at the heels. In gaming, I guarantee that you wouldn't be able to tell a difference between the 4670k and the 4130 if they're both used with a midrange gpu unless the game is platform-limited like skyrim.
People love to get caught up in "ooh if I get this slightly cheaper than I can upgrade this", and for graphics cards that's true. However, for things like psus, ram, cpus, and motherboards you can spend a stuffload of money and get barely any increase in performance in the things you use. I'm not saying don't get the 4670k, I'm saying only get the 4670k if you know you're going to benefit from slightly higher compute and multithreaded performance. It's the same reason why most people shouldn't get an FX-8350, they're paying more money for features they'll never use. Is the 8350 a better processor than a 4350? Absolutely. Will you be able to tell the difference 99% of the time? No.
My recommendation would be to take jerome's psu, case (and motherboard) suggestion, along with the ram, cpu, and hard drive from my build. Take the extra $60-70 you have left and spend it on games. If you don't want games, buy something else with the money. If you don't want anything else, swap the i3-4130 for the i5-4670k.
As someone who plays a lot of video games, I like big numbers and intel's i5-4440 has 3.1/3.3 gHz turbo compared to AMD's FX-4350 4.2 gHz for $80 less. I understand that intel processors ourperform AMD processors at similar frequencies, but I don't know if I want to drop $200 for a 3.1 gHz processor + $100ish for a motherboard compared to what AMD offers. What intel processor would you suggest pairing with a 760?
Clock speed isn't indicative of performance. The easiest way to explain would just be to say that intel processors are much more efficient than AMD processors, they can perform many more operations per clock cycle than AMD, and therefore need less speed to get more stuff done.
Poll