Anonymous1b

Before that, I quoted my opening post saying that I had, even going so far as to embolden the relevant part. 

I'm googling for you! I'll let you know if I can find anything

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
 
CPU: Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($299.99 @ Newegg) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($24.89 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: MSI Z97-GAMING 5 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($138.98 @ Newegg) 
Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury Black 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory  ($80.49 @ SuperBiiz) 
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($95.89 @ OutletPC) 
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB AMP! Extreme Video Card  ($659.99 @ Amazon) 
Case: NZXT S340 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case  ($63.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12G 650W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply  ($80.98 @ Newegg) 
Total: $1445.20
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-21 15:14 EST-0500

for the cpu-cooler the Cooler master hyper 212X is even overclocking a good choise(20 $)
 
for RAM two 4GB 2133MHz(or higher) DDR4 is absolutely enough (when gaming 4- 6 GB of RAM are used at max) => take the cheapest kit of a good brand(kingston, crucial, corsair, G.Skill) about 50$
 
http://www.bequiet.com/de/psucalculator says: max power consumption with overclocking 467W so 550-650W are definitely enough, I'd take a bq straight power 10 600W (120$)
 
for over clocking a Z chipset is required and all standard connections => MSI Z170-A Pro (110$) 
 
240 GB isa good choise for windows, etc. I like the Samsung 850 evo a lot(80$)
 
 

Not enough information in the OP to be constructive. Following the forum guidelines, http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/3061-build-plan-thread-recommendations-please-read-before-posting/ helps.
 
At the very least post a budget.

For the ram use Kingston very reliable and high quality ram. If you want to OC ur cpu get an NZXT kraken x61 cpu cooler if not then just get a cooler master hyper 212 Evo. For a mother board there are so many options. For a gaming system I would recommend a asus rog Maximus VII it's a high end gaming board that is great and looks sweet. For the ssd a Samsung 850 is the way I would go. It's expensive but so worth it. For one 980ti 850w is enough. I would recommend a corsair or evga PSU. And lastly for the case NZXT and cooler master are the way to go. They both make great cases but I personally would go with an NZXT h440 or an NZXT noctis 450. I realize everything I've recommended is lots of $$ other than cooler master hyper Evo 212 but it way worth it and by ur CPU and gpu choice I don't thing it should be a problem.
PS unless ur planning on gaming on 1440p or 4K a 980 will be fine 980ti is really meant for 1440p gaming

go to cyberpowerpc and select a computer that more or less is the one that your tring to build and mod it out to the exact way you want it and it will tell you if you need cooling and how many watss you need 

OK, and when the cooling kits breaks or degrades, what happens then? Is my whole $750 card gone or do I just need to change the cooler or something and can still sell it?
 
After everything that's been said, it looks like the G1 or the AMP Extreme seem to be the best option. Since I'm paying so much for the card, I'd rather not go for the Hybrid, given that it might not last as long and that even if the whole card doesn't go down the drain and I just need to replace the cooler, it's still an extra $100 before reselling. On a card already costing me $750 (probably $900 where I live, though I have to check), spending more just so I can resell it before upgrading to another seems...insane.

Thanks, that was very helpful. Exactly how long do these all in one cooling kits last, then?Also, what's so special about the classified (if it's very good, I can wait a while for it)?

That's like saying that the 960, 970, 980 and 980 Ti are all rebrands of the 750 Ti.

lol i started clicking too!

^ What he said. Even if one technology is better than the other, it doesn't necessarily mean that all monitors with X technology will be better than all monitors with Y. For example, when it comes to panels, IPS is considered superior to TN panels but high-end, more expensive TN panels can be much better than cheap IPS panels. Like I've said, you just need to go down to a store and check the display for yourself - or go to the Amazon/Newegg/[Retailer] reviews and read what people have said. You can also check out video reviews of the monitor on YouTube and they can give you an idea of the picture quality if you can't make it to a physical store.

dont worry about LED or LCD they are basiclly the same thing you wont even be able to tell the diffrence

A difference of 1ms in the response rate is negligible (it's literally 1/1000 of a second so unless you're The Flash, you won't really notice it). Response rates are more about ghosting anyways and 1ms isn't going to make much of a difference.
 
As for choosing between the two, LCD vs. LED won't make a difference. You should go to the store and see the monitors yourself to get an idea of the visuals. The 24 inch is $100 cheaper but it's obviously smaller and doesn't have the high 144Hz  refresh rate of the 27 inch so I guess it's really up to you. Do you want the larger screen and higher refresh rate or do you want to save some money?

That's not even a challenge for a 980 Ti.

970 or maaaybe 980 are what you're looking for... at 1080p a 980ti seems a bit exaggerated. I would get a 1440p monitor, unless that's what you're aiming for later. 
 
Just saying, is your money after all you do as you please.

You make a good point here. This is what I'm gonna do. Indeed, it might be overpriced, but it gives me the performance I need, is more future proof than the 970 and I can afford it.

I think some people get too carried away with the price to performance argument on the 970 and kind of miss the point.
 
If the 980 is what you need to get a minimum of 60 fps at the resolution and settings you game at on the games you play, and you have the money for it, that is the card to get.
 
It doesn't matter if a 970 is a great deal if it cant quite achieve what you want. If the next higher up card can, then go with that card if you can afford it. There may be circumstances where the 970 just doesn't quite cut it but the 980 barely does.
 
Case in point, playing bf4 on ultra settings at 1440p. The 970 is going to struggle and you will see FPS drops below 60 frequently. The 980 has just enough extra power to barely get it done. It doesn't matter if you can OC a 970 to same speed of a reference 980, because you can also OC a 980 to maintain the same gap, so the same performance gap remains, and in the bf4 example, you probably need that 980 OC to keep above 60 fps.
 
To me, minimum FPS are whats important. Maximum FPS is meaningless and average is only good for comparing overall performance of two cards.

Currently, yes, that would be enough but since consoles, too, have 8GB of RAM and PC games are far bigger - and more complex - than their console counterparts, you should invest in 12-16GB. Of course, it also depends on your usage. I have a bazillion tabs open simultaneously so even 8 GB is, at times, not enough for me, while for a lot of people, it's overkill. Overall, though, getting more than 8 would be the way to go, especially since you're aiming to future proof your computer.

Thanks a lot for the explanation!

You're right, LCDs must physically refresh at least every 30-40ms or so. Whenever the framerate falls below a specified amount normally you'd get flickering, because when you get down too far it takes so long for the next frame to arrive that the pixels will drift back to black by the time the next frame arrives, giving you flickering between each frame. This is why FreeSync cannot go below a certain threshold. However, with a G-SYNC module once you fall below the threshold (i.e. 36Hz on the RoG Swift) it simply doubles the refresh rate and shows each frame twice, if you go even lower (18Hz) it shows each frame 4 times, etc. But this is behind-the-scenes operation and is invisible to the user. So from a technical standpoint yes, G-SYNC monitors won't go below 36Hz (for example) but from a user perspective it's the same as if the monitor went from 0-144Hz with G-SYNC enabled.
 
With "G-SYNC 2.0" I mean NVIDIA will most likely not use a proprietary controller chip in the monitor in a future version of G-SYNC, it will work via the same protocol as FreeSync. They will in effect switch to FreeSync (which works DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync), but they'll still call it G-SYNC I do not think this is coming any time soon though.