I don't get why these people are trying to push you to buy a 2600K -- 2500K is definately the sweet spot right now. It only loses to 2600K in benches that use more than 4 cores, which are not that common yet, and even in those it loses by less than 20% usually. And it's only two thirds of the price.
As for the motherboard, I don't think there is that much reason to buy the 200$ MB's any more. One of the major HW shifts of the past few years is that all the performance-critical components got moved from the board onto the CPU die. There are only two things left in the MB that are of any importance -- the voltage regulation circuitry, and the connectivity. And because, if you go for a quality brand, you can now get a decent enough VRM in a basic board, the only reason to go for the top-of-the-line models is that you need two integrated Ethernet controllers, three PCIe 16x slots, or whatever. Just get a 120$*gigabyte board and be happy.
After we told him that paying 200$ for a FX-60 was blatantly insane, he suggested an almost-as-insane 1100T combo for a total of 500$. After that I told him two good options -- 200$ for a cheap AMD setup, or 500$ for some of the fastest HW out there. How is any of that unreasonable?
I do agree that 2600K is overpriced. But only because it's crippled little brother sells for so much less, while performing just as good in most tasks, and almost as good in everything else. How is ~200$ too much for what is very nearly the very best consumer-class HW out there?