Yuvraj Mann

Out of that list I would for sure get the Arctic 280. Its got a good warranty, good pump, phat rad, and it looks nice. I don't know about the RGB though.. that would be a personal preference I think. I would go for the black one myself..
 
I will probably try out the 280 or 360.. in a month or two.. probably the 280 because I am cheap.

That can't be determined with random rad sizes across different products. We can tell you generally which 280mm performs better than some other 280mm, but a DEEPCOOL 360, will probably outperform an Artic Freezer II 280, simply due to the larger rad, even though the Artic Freezer II, in general, is pretty much the best AIO in any rad size, compared to other AIOs of the same size.

XPG Core Reactor is best choice.

XPG is a no brainer. The cheapest is the best.

MSI > Gigabyte > XPG. They're all fine, though.

In PSU reviews/threads I often see people recommending/trashing PSUs based on their topology (DCDC, DF, LLC, SR etc) which are terms I am not familiar with. Would someone be able to give me a basic explanation on PSU topology?

Credit to: @LukeSavenije
 
The following list is based on facts, ranked on power delivery and known problems. The list will include boards that support CPU overclocking available at retail from different brands.
 
There are still differences in performance among boards of the same tier. As a result, those that barely made it into that tier will be in orange while those that are better than others in the same tier are in blue. Unless specified, boards sharing the same name and chipset in different form factors are ranked the same.
 
For advanced users: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Smj5dh97n32wJqm5dkdDcQt8ID7vH52-lKzaaXUUQx8/edit?usp=sharing
 
AMD
 
All current draw figures are based on Prime95 small FFT with AVX unless otherwise specified, in other words the worst case scenario.
 
Only often recommended sku of CPUs in the same generation and core/thread count configuration is named, others share the same rating.
 
Zen scales down frequency and voltage according to EDC (current limit) and TDC (thermal limit) settings of the motherboard so in theory you won’t cook the VRM of any board at stock, you just lose frequency.
 
For tier A and above, due to lack of feasible CPUs that allow testing of the boards at higher current ratings, there are some level on guessing in terms of how much more power the VRM can take.
 
AM4 (Athlon, Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, Ryzen 7, Ryzen 9)
 
B550 and X570S Speculation: If you cant find the board above, then it should be here. If it's already up there, then ignore what it's placed here
 
TR4 (Ryzen Threadripper 1xxx and 2xxx) X399
 
sTRX4 (Ryzen Threadripper 3xxx) TRX40 (largely guessing since there's little data)
 
Sources:
 
Legacy list thread: Those looking to dive into Intel's outdated process node and recycled (for many times) architecture please refer to the old list
 

inno 3d and pocket the money.

Also, the thing is... it's the OP's money and his choice.  If he wants opinions out of those 3, then say your piece about the 5700XT if you want, but also answer him.  You've recommended your preference, now it's up to him to make the call.
 
I would go Inno with those 3 choices, and then still recommend the 5700XT as well.
 
Btw, you're wrong about the software.

Gaming x trio and aorus are the better coolers, but saving money with the inno3D card is what I'd pick
 
Of course, the RX 5700 XT is supreme if value is important to you, so if you just want performance, get whichever of the high end cards that looks cooler to you (or whichever plays nicer with your RGB software, perhaps get the MSI if you have an MSI board and the gigabyte if you have a gigabyte board)

get the msi one in my experience they hold up well for a long time

But have you considered getting an RX 5700? 🤣

This is a great place to start:
 
 

rog strix has fattest heatsink and lowest temps, but GPU sag is real

yea yea i heard it before less price same performance, the black screen issue still remains after 6 months of waiting that's why i have to switch to green team.

Im also looking for a 2070 Super, and im also returning my 5700XT for the exact same reason. Constant black screens and i have tried everything, i even bought a new PSU, swapped ram, swapped PCIE slots, re-fitted all cables nothing works. The AMD forum is filled with complaints about the black screen of death so i dont feel that confident getting another one the only thing that worked for me was switching the 5700XT with my older card rx480 and no more black screens! Now im looking for a nVidia card because im tired of AMDs horrible drivers.

I'm actually returning my 5700xt tomorrow. I have nothing against AMD, I've been basically using their CPUs and GPUs since 2013 but ever since I got my 5700xt 2 weeks ago I'm having driver issues. Constant black screens, crashes etc and I'm just can't take it anymore.
 
I heard some people complaining about gigabyte having bad build quality... 

Switch to an RX 5700 (non XT version) or an RX 5600XT. The RX 5700XT is a piece of shit. I think the real issue with it that AMD won't ever admit is that its pushing the RDNA architecture to its absolute limits, making it crash, blackout the screen, etc. I wouldn't even touch an RX 5700XT with a cattle prod.

Read reviews and look at trusted sources like Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Anandtech and etc. Else, you'll get lied to and mislead into a poor option like a mini cooler 2070S which ends up running louder and hotter than most other models, including the Founders Edition stock one. THat's my advice. Read reviews and look at trusted information sources, do NOT blindly trust any of us (me included)

Well, you forgot to say that the 5700XT has some driver problem, is making much more heat and noise... And that the 2070s is 10% faster than the 5700 and has 25% stronger 1% low result.
So I would say that the 5700XT has a really poor value overall and that the 2070s is the best choice between those 2.
@DrSkull20 I have a Zotac one and it is a pretty good choice while being also the cheapest 2070S (well, was the cheapest choice when I bought it)

I have an EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 G3 and get black screens with a 5700xt. So I don't think it is a power issue.

Well a worthwhile upgrade would be getting a good quality PSU, moving to this Gigabyte PSU is by no means an upgrade. More than likely you do not need more than a 550W PSU anyways. What hardware do you have? What is your budget and location?

They were having some problems with RX5700XT and this is group-regulated platform (double sourced between CWT and Andyson), so not very surprising.
But no, OP, this Gigabyte B700H is essentially the same thing as your current Antec. You need to get smth better.

The reason why the seagate is faster is that the ST2000dm005 has 256 MB of cache and the WD20EZRZ has 64 MB. But cache is really only a buffer, because both are 5400rpm drives if you put both drives in a task where the cache is full (example: the computer can supply data faster than the drive can write it, causing the computer to slow the rate it is sending) then they would be near to identical. 
Looking at the stats for the drives there is not a big difference in speed or height. The WD20EZRZ is near to identical to the ST2000dm005 in length and width, and is 5.9 mm taller. If your including weight in your meaning of size then yes WD20EZRZ weighs 185 g more than the ST2000dm005.  As minibois pointed out, all that can be explained by the design choices the manufactures made, in the case of the WD it probably has one more platter in it. 
Actually the Seagate ST2000dm006 (2 TB, 7200 RPM, 64 MB cache) sold in a lot of places for the same or near to the same price as the ST2000dm005 model that was out at the time. Comparing the stats of ST2000dm006 to the WD20EZRZ is interesting as they are very close on weight and height, and the ST2000dm006 does have a extra platter than ST2000dm005. Which would suggest the  WD20EZRZ would to.
 
Right now if I walked into a computer store and had to grab one Seagate and one WD drive with the closest specs to your two, in the area I live (global distribution is a tad messed up right now) they would probably be a WD Blue 2TB WD20EZAZ and a 2TB ST2000DM008 for $10 ($6-7 USD) more than the WD. The WD20EZRZ  has been out of production for years now and I have not seen a ST2000dm005 since they started to remove the compute naming off the 2 TB drives. WD20EZAZ (5400rpm, 256 MB cache and on average probably around $10 USD cheaper than the average price of the WD20EZRZ when it came out) is the same height as your WD20EZRZ and weighs near to the same as your ST2000dm005, WD HDD generally are the same height, Seagate drives vary on how much space is needed between two heights of around 2cm and 2.6cm. ST2000DM008 (7200rpm, 256 MB cache) has the same dimensions as the ST2000dm005 and weighs 75g more.

What is your question? The direct answer is because that is what you paid for them. If by "i bought them online" you mean they were second hand and the question is why were they the same price when they are different slightly from each other. Then you would have to ask the seller to get the real answer, at a guess the seller didn't know or care about the differences and priced on age and storage capacity. Are you concerned that you were ripped off in some way? Are you just interested in the differences? 

Here is the problem.  The TS Bench is fully loading 4 out of 8 threads which produces a very consistent 50% load.  The Task Manager Details tab gets this right.
 

 
While this test is running, when I switch over to the Performance tab, the CPU Utilization is being reported at a consistent 72%.  That data is wrong.  
 

 
When I switch to the per core data, it still shows the incorrect 72% number.
 
Edit - Here is what Windows seems to be doing.  The turbo boost multiplier on this CPU is 34 and the default multiplier is 24.  Windows takes the 51% actual load and multiplies it by (34/24) and that equals approximately 72%.  The data being graphed should not be used for any purpose.  
 
Here is the exact same load with Turbo Boost disabled.  Now the CPU is running at the default 24 multiplier and now the Windows Task Manager graph is finally reporting correctly.
 

 
 
The Core i5-8400 has a low Processor Base Frequency of only 2.80 GHz.  That is why @Yuvraj Mann is seeing the exact same problem.  
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/126687/intel-core-i5-8400-processor-9m-cache-up-to-4-00-ghz.html