I'm currently trying to build a desktop for college that'll be powerful enough to handle any game I throw at it for the next 4 years (hopefully). However, as of late, I have been torn between two AMD processors, the Athlon 64 x2 6400+ 3.2 ghz and the Phenom 8650 2.3 ghz at stock settings. I know, for future proof computers you should get an Intel cus their faster, but again, I'm on a tight budget and my pockets aren't that deep. I just need help deciding between these two cpu's and I'm set to begin construction.
My current parts:
MOBO: MSI K9N2 SLI Platinum (SLI just incase so I can simply slap another nvidia in if it starts getting sluggish FPS)
Power supply: 650W
OS: Windows Vista Premium 32bit sp1
HD: 640 GB (320x2) 7200 RPM 32 MB (16x2) Cache
RAM: 4 GB (2x2) G.Skill 800 mhz
GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX260 (+ another one in SLI if need be)
Heatsink: zeroTherm Zen FZ120S + 120mm fan (pictures of it do not do justice to its sheer size)
Case: Raidmax Aztec w/ 3x80mm, 2x120mm fans
CPU: ?????? (Insert CPU here)
So there it is, my rig without a cpu.
Here's my 2 cents on what I know so far:
From benchmarks based on the 6400+ and the 8650's stock speeds, it seems that the 6400+ beats the 8650 limp in everything even though the 6400+ is a dual core and the 8650 a triple core. However, the 6400+ also runs very very hot at 125W. If I want future proofing, it would be a no brainer to go with the 6400+, however, I'm concerned that its high operating temperature will limit my ability to overclock it. Also, I have seen many screenshots proving the overclocking capabilities of the 8650 and its quite impressive. Due to its lower temperatures, do you think that it OC'd would beat out the 6400+ OC'd as well? As of far, I havn't found any benchmarks testing both of the overclocked side by side. I've only seen them compared at stock speeds, which hardly reveals any potential. With the numerous amount of fans and a rather formidible heatsink, I think I can push overclocking rather far. But the CPU question remains. This is why I have come here to ask you guys. With such a large and experienced community, I'm sure I can get a satisfactory answer. Thanks in advance for your help.
My current parts:
MOBO: MSI K9N2 SLI Platinum (SLI just incase so I can simply slap another nvidia in if it starts getting sluggish FPS)
Power supply: 650W
OS: Windows Vista Premium 32bit sp1
HD: 640 GB (320x2) 7200 RPM 32 MB (16x2) Cache
RAM: 4 GB (2x2) G.Skill 800 mhz
GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX260 (+ another one in SLI if need be)
Heatsink: zeroTherm Zen FZ120S + 120mm fan (pictures of it do not do justice to its sheer size)
Case: Raidmax Aztec w/ 3x80mm, 2x120mm fans
CPU: ?????? (Insert CPU here)
So there it is, my rig without a cpu.
Here's my 2 cents on what I know so far:
From benchmarks based on the 6400+ and the 8650's stock speeds, it seems that the 6400+ beats the 8650 limp in everything even though the 6400+ is a dual core and the 8650 a triple core. However, the 6400+ also runs very very hot at 125W. If I want future proofing, it would be a no brainer to go with the 6400+, however, I'm concerned that its high operating temperature will limit my ability to overclock it. Also, I have seen many screenshots proving the overclocking capabilities of the 8650 and its quite impressive. Due to its lower temperatures, do you think that it OC'd would beat out the 6400+ OC'd as well? As of far, I havn't found any benchmarks testing both of the overclocked side by side. I've only seen them compared at stock speeds, which hardly reveals any potential. With the numerous amount of fans and a rather formidible heatsink, I think I can push overclocking rather far. But the CPU question remains. This is why I have come here to ask you guys. With such a large and experienced community, I'm sure I can get a satisfactory answer. Thanks in advance for your help.