Reasons for my selections
The Core i7-3770K, or if you get the Haswell version, the Core i7-4770K, doesn't improve a whole lot against the Core i5-3570K (Ivy Bridge) or Core i5-4670K (Haswell) and the only difference between the two models aside from a 100MHz bump in clock is HyperThreading. The only place where the i7 shines over the i5 is in multi-threaded tasks. Since I'm going to assume this PC is built mainly for gaming, a very small handful of games benefit from multi-core processors. The only game I know that benefits more is Supreme Commander.
Even if we were to be hopeful in assuming that the next generation consoles will more or less force developers to take advantage of multi-threaded tasks, I'm willing to bet these require real cores to see those benefits, not the "faked" multi-core HyperThreading provides. If benchmarks on the AMD FX-4300 and FX-8150 mean anything, where most benchmarks get double the performance between the two (and the difference is the FX8150 has twice as many cores). Between the i5 and i7, it's something like 30% more.
The Cooler Master Hyper 212 is $30 and performs really well for an air cooler. Back when it was released, it had the performance of $80 air coolers. If you're worried about fan noise, in my experience, the processor isn't the source of the majority of fan noise in the computer and water coolers can be just as noisy as air coolers. At best if you're getting a all-in-one water cooling kit, you shave off about 10C from an air cooler that you spend about three times more.
Also temperatures do not affect performance unless you're hitting the thermal ceiling and the processor is throttling itself. The only thing temperatures affect is the component's life span, which if Intel is shipping with their crappy stock cooler and expect it to last for 5 years (and every 10C lower doubles the life span of a part), then I don't see a point in getting anything more than an air cooler unless you're doing some heavy overclocking and keeping the CPU busy.
Since I'm running under the assumption that this is more or less a gaming PC here's the deal. Practically all games released are still 32-bit. In a Windows 64-bit environment, the OS only allocates 2GB maximum of usable memory space for any 32-bit application unless it was compiled with a flag specifically telling the OS to allow all 4GB to be used. As far as I know, only a handful of games were compiled like that. Thus since most games, yet, are going to breach 2GB, 8GB is pretty much the most a lot of us here will recommend.
The only time we ever say that more than 8GB is acceptable is if you're doing serious video editing, Photoshop, or running several VMs at once.
Just a personal preference. The one you picked is fine.
If you're getting two graphics cards, then you still don't need 1000W. For simplicity's sake, start with 600W for a single video card system, then add 150W for every video card you add. In measurements I pulled from the wall using a Kill-A-Watt, I had a Core i5-2500 with two GeForce GTX 560 Ti's. At most it would pull is about 330W. When replaced both cards with a GTX 670, the total power consumption was about no more than 240W. Off the wall. Running what I thought was a pretty taxing game (Crysis 1). From most power supply reviews I've read, from sources that actually do in-depth reviews, power supplies are most efficient at 50%-60% load. So I figure, 600W is a good figure for all single high-end video card systems, and each card adds about 150W.
Also you might be tempted to say, "but LatiosXT, the box says I need 600W for just one card!". This is assuming a worst case, 100% loaded ATX system. My observations (and pretty much everyone who actually does a power measurement) shows otherwise that those cards don't need that much juice.
So why get a better video card? Because almost all the time, the game is going to be bottlenecked by the video card.