"For a start, any mobo he purchases now with the 1155 socket is already dead in the water regarding any potential upgrade path."
Your point is invalid. You know as well as I do that socket changes are nearly as frequent as new processors. No matter what he buys, it's going to be 'dead in the water' eventually.
"As such he is best to go with the MOST POTENT processor he can afford and overclock the tits off of it [...]"
Emphasis is mine.
Having a PC is a case of compensating for you, I get that. It's not for most people. You're a minority. Having a 'rig' isn't necessary to be able to enjoy damn nearly every game on the platform (and definitely every good game). It's only necessary if one believes that their computer is an equitable replacement for their junk.
This kind of mindset is really bad, and whilst it improves your self-esteem for whatever reason, it's also REALLY bad advice to anyone who doesn't need the egoboo of having such a machine.
"Meanwhile a 6 or 7 or 8 series card will happily keep up with even the most modern games for at least two years."
4xx and 5xx series cards will also do this. What's your point? The speed limit for games is mostly set by the mainstream, like it or not, and the games that will require more than a 5xx for the next three-four years will account for no more than 1 per cent of the library between then and now.
"I have seen a huge performance increase going from a 580 to a 680 [...]"
In the 1 per cent of games that actually require that performance increase. This is what you keep failing to mention.
"Buying a 480 or 580 now is pretty pointless considering their high outright cost, if you wanted to save money you would surely opt for say a 760 or something, which would still give better performance."
That's a myth. It was relevant back around the time of the 8800/9800 series of cards, but since about the 2xx and on, the cards have required about the same amount of power. If you want to dispute this then I want to see some evidence of it.
"The difference [an SSD] makes to a PC and how rapidly the operating system functions alone means I will never again buy or build a PC without one."
I think you're talking about very old and very slow HDDs, here. What you don't realise is that the technology surrounding HDDs actually is improving, and if you have a fast HDD with a large cache, you're going to see absolutely no difference to most standard PC 'functions,' such as application cold boot times, application performance whilst running, and so on.
So what does an SSD net you versus a modern HDD? What do you gain? You get a couple of minutes back from your boot time, and you get a couple of seconds back from loading screens (if that, if the game is optimised well enough). And that's worth a drive which is many times the price of something he could get instead? And you called me an idiot.
Yes, my solution requires more RAM to make it work, admittedly. But the fact of the matter is that SSDs cost so much that you'd be paying about 20 per cent of the cost of an SSD for a good HDD and a good amount of RAM.
You're again giving him bad advice, and I'd advise you to do your research. And even if you'd say that a fast HDD with a large cache isn't enough, even coupled with a sizeable amount of RAM, then you're still saying that those seconds gained from loading screens are worth it to you. But for most people they aren't. Most people would prefer to save the money.
People like the poor sod to whom you're giving this awful advice.
"And lastly, AMD are dead in the world of desktops. Forget it."
Brrrand boners!! Nvidia really turns you on.
That's obviously and hilariously untrue. Please... this is all about your 'big rig' boner, and it's not going to help him at all. Please stop. I'm actually trying to give him GOOD advice.