PeterD1001

That's the thing a second hand deal on a GTX 980 or 980 Ti might be more appealing.

Just gonna add to this threads that I have been editing with Resolve for a couple weeks now and I like it a lot.
I am somewhat experience with others editing programs, so maybe that was why it was easy for me to get started on editing in there, but I found it to mostly very intuitive.

It’s worth it.

I personally can tell the pixels on a 24" 1080p panel, at a very normal viewing distance. I can tell in both games and just basic whatever else. So yea, I think it's worth it.
Scaling can be a pain, because Windows  and some of its program are still not used to it.. But I would say it's worth it  

Yup, but if you don't plan on messing around with it you should be fine.  One time PITA isn't that bad

i have a 360mm rad + 240mm rad custom loop, check out Northern Bee in my sig if you care, so no i dont have any experience with air cooling in this case. i do have experience with BeQuiet coolers, and yes they are a bit of a pain to mount, especially if compared to Noctua or Cryorig but its not like its impossible

Bro, I'm running my i7 in a Node202 with a Cryorig C7 and it still doesn't throttle. 
You are fine. 

Thanks TVwazhere

An overclocked 1080 Ti will draw about 300W, so yes, 650W is overkill. 
 

650GQ is probably the best for what youre paying. 

Save your money and go with the 850. Like you said, you will not notice significant differences between load times. Unless your are transferring large amounts of data all the time.

I've been using a 950 Pro for the past two years and I really haven't seen any real difference in loading performance from it vs. the SATA SSDs I've used. And doing some observations with drive access and bandwidth on an OS load over a VM, I'm inclined to believe bandwidth isn't as important as seek time, coupled with processing power because loading isn't just moving stuff from storage to RAM, but initializing the program as well.
 

There's definitely a difference. But it's seconds. Maybe around 5 - 10 for loading the OS, and in games sometimes up to 45 IIRC. Only you can decide if that's worth it or not to you. I plan to go NVME for my next build, but that's just because I like the excess, and a $175 price increase isn't that much in the grand scheme of the build

save ya cash and get the 850.

Oh, I usually went by this idea: SATA SSDs usually get you twice the storage space for the same price point of an NVMe drive. That's more stuff you could bring to SSDs speeds that would see a much higher performance benefit than a comparatively smaller one going from SATA to NVMe.

For speed, computer graphics engines render 1 sample per pixel.  By increasing the render scale you are increasing the number of samples per pixel which improves the image quality (as Tabs mentioned, this is used for anti-aliasing, a method known as supersampling).  Some games will allow you to decrease to less than one sample per pixel for speed.  This is sometimes advantageous to set in game as opposed to changing the resolution at your graphics card.  For example, if you're on a 1080p monitor but are rendering internally at 2160p (4k), the game engine may decide to keep certain things like shadows or other effects rendered at 1080p while the assets you'll see a difference in at 4k.

Okay, I just googled it. The setting is for internal resolution rendering in the game, so that's my bad. It effectively works like brute-force antialiasing then (same as NVidia DSR, but on an internal game basis instead of a graphics card basis). Short answer is that 30% higher internal scaling would be similar to running a 30% higher resolution, but scaled down so you'll see slightly more aliasing (so antialiasing together would cause edge blurriness which could look nice on larger 1080p displays).
 
The difference in resolution between 1920x1080 (2,073,600) and 2560x1440 (3,686,400) is about 90% more for 1440p, so theoretically if you ran the game at 1.9x scale you'll be approximating the resolution if it were running 1440p.

Some games allow you to render the game internally at some resolution, but output it at the desired resolution. So you can ask the game to render at 1080p on your 2560x1440 screen and it'll simply scale it up. Alternatively if it offers it, you could ask the game to render it at 4K and scale it down (though at that point you should use DSR if you have NVIDIA)

Thanks guys 

AOC is 165Hz
 
I have the Agon AG271QG and it is fantastic.
When it released it used the newer version of the AH-IPS panel than ASUS or Acer but they all maybe use the same panel now after few revisions.
They are all prety much the same monitor as they source the panels from AUOptronics.
 
The AOC has an excellent stand like most of the nice Dell monitors but out of the box is not nearly as well calibrated as the ASUS or Acer one.
The OSD menu is quite lacking but it will do enough for setup and never touch again.
I was able to use High Overdrive which resulted in significantly lower motion blur with no overshoot or glitches and it overclocked to 165Hz without an issue.
The USB hub on the monitor works great as well.

i'd start with the SLI plus, Extreme4 if you can afford it.

I'd get the Asus Prime Z270-P. Its one of the cheapest Z270 boards but does everything you'd need it to do. Also I personally like the Asus UEFI and oc-utility a lot more

Ah! Got it, thanks

I agree there.  I like high frame rates, my eyes respond better to higher framerates than they do to resolution.  I like 1440p because it's easy-ish enough to drive at semi high framerates and looks better than 1080p. 
 
On topic: if you go above 24" I would recommend 1440p or higher as at normal distances it can look pretty poor.  (For reference I run a 3440x1440 at 100Hz).

I would say if you want improvement over 1080 then go 4k. 1440 isn't worth it in my opinion.