Truth be told, I don't particularly think you need a super-high-end anything to do this kind of work, or certainly for learning purposes. For the most part, having slower hardware won't prevent you from doing anything, it'll only delay you (slightly). Professionals pay big money for marginal speed increases because the other per-time-unit cost of associated software and manpower is such that one-time hardware costs are easily re-couped. As it is, it sounds like you have more time than money at your disposal, so your considerations might reflect differently on your outcome.

Granted, more never hurts, but we also live in an age where even fairly average computer components are far more capable than is strictly necessary.

Truth be told, I don't particularly think you need a super-high-end anything to do this kind of work, or certainly for learning purposes. For the most part, having slower hardware won't prevent you from doing anything, it'll only delay you (slightly). Professionals pay big money for marginal speed increases because the other per-time-unit cost of associated software and manpower is such that one-time hardware costs are easily re-couped. As it is, it sounds like you have more time than money at your disposal, so your considerations might reflect differently on your outcome.

Granted, more never hurts, but we also live in an age where even fairly average computer components are far more capable than is strictly necessary.

So true, but there are cases that limit certain developers greatly, and even best metal will not do. I have seen it myself. You do not want to close 3ds max for you can smoke a cigarete till it opens, you have zbrush open, raster editor open, and 8 GB is minimum of RAM gonne when you come to work. Or if you realize you cannot put Skin modifier on a 100K model that has 120 bones, becouse you have just 8 GB RAM.... and you didnt even animate it yet !

Sure. SSD and gobs of RAM ought to be a part of any modern system. 8GB today is pretty much the minimum for practical "real work" beyond word processing with a few apps open. RAM probably more than any other component causes hard limitations on what you can do. On the other hand, whether you get GPU A or GPU B that's even 2, 4 or 8 times faster may be uncomfortable, put it probably doesn't outright stop you from doing anything.

Blade, could you reason up why triple channel is not a solid step feature in oppose to dual one? I would be curious to know, totaly no offence!

In the most technical of senses, it's an improvement. The same way someone who is 1828mm tall is taller than someone who is 1825mm tall. But for all intents and purposes, these people are the same height. Yes, triple channel is faster. But very few applications get much of anything out of even 1866 ram. Bear in mind that those ram benches I posted were of triple channel ram. Even triple channel ram over 1600 is basically worthless. It's even slightly worse at dual channel.

But the main issue is that only socket 1333 supports triple channel ram. Socket 1333 is an enthusiast platform and is priced accordingly. There is no such thing as an $80 socket 1333 motherboard. The cheapest cpu is about $300 and isn't nearly as powerful as $250 1155 chips. There was a time when 1333 was top of the line. Now it's basically a collector's item.

Socket 1333 is old news, first-generation i7s (Nehalem) -- the microarchitecture is 2 generations ahead of that now (Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge). The equivalent platform is now Socket 2011, which supports quad-channel RAM, and up to 8 dimms, and processors with 4 or 6 cores if money were no object. It's cheaper than a 1333 platform was, but a mobo + the cheapest (Sslllooowwww...) quad-core socket 2011 CPU is ~$600 alone.

Unless you need and can afford one of the 6 core cpus, need 64+ GB of RAM, or gobs of PCIe lanes, you're far better of with a socket 1155 platform.