Skylake

[TroyX]

I made the switch to DDR4, but not because of the RAM. I did it for the newer CPUs and improvements to the overall platform. NVMe, more SATA ports, and all of that. But mostly I did it so I'd have a place to put my shiny new CPU.

I don't know anyone who uses more than 4 sata ports due to cheap SSD's nowdays, but I believe you, you like the new shiny stuff, so do I and I am a sucker too because maybe I will end up buying Skylake too

I was just hoping that I will convince my self not to by speaking out here, I hope it works.

 

[stevemachine17]

I am still on my i5-2500k, and I still see no reason to upgrade. I am also getting the itch too, haha

 

[haz_mat]

Still only quad for the mainstream. The way I see it, that extra bandwidth from DDR4 is wasted without more cores or a decent boost in single-core performance. There are exceptions of course, but production systems that need memory bandwidth typically go for the quad-channel setup anyways.

No way I will pull the trigger on a platform upgrade just for a new storage controller and ram. Next thing we know Intel will decide to integrate the network adapter into the CPU and release an entire platform generation around that single feature.

If they'd ditch that waste-of-diespace GPU we could have two more cores and double the cache size.

 

[wirk]

Still only quad for the mainstream. The way I see it, that extra bandwidth from DDR4 is wasted without more cores or a decent boost in single-core performance. There are exceptions of course, but production systems that need memory bandwidth typically go for the quad-channel setup anyways. No way I will pull the trigger on a platform upgrade just for a new storage controller and ram. Next thing we know Intel will decide to integrate the network adapter into the CPU and release an entire platform generation around that single feature. If they'd ditch that waste-of-diespace GPU we could have two more cores and double the cache size.

It is like with every new platform, first come the mainstream chips and later extreme chips. For the general market optimal mainstream is 4-core+GPU so that is how it is. Extreme chips are, well, for extremists and 6- 8-core (or even more) will ba available later but for a price. Integrating network controller on chip or even integrating everything on chip is possible but from the market point of view it is not optimal and they wisely leave some breathing space for the mobo manufacturers since this expands the market. You know, market is expanding when one can offer lots of models with various bells and whistles.

 

[-Dragon-]

ddr4 shows no real improvement in games and other programs so I fail to see why anyone would still upgrade.

intel should have made the Skylake as a standard and affordable 6/8 core CPU to get attention from the PC crowd.

I mean, who do they have over there at Intel, its almost like internet is a sin for them to use, therefore they cant see what people really want in order to upgrade.

for crying out loud, our cell phones will be more powerful than our cpu's in ten years from now the way its going, that's how bad it is.

It's funny you think any company should base their business practices by reading forums.

What people, as judged by the majority of people that don't really give 2 shits about computers and technology and just want something that works without them having to dick with it want, is cellphones and tablets as powerful as desktops.

When you decide to declare what people really want, you should try to include people other than yourself and everyone who agrees with you.

 

[skiddy]

I'm mostly interested in the GPU and video decoding capabilities.

From the rumors I've heard, they should have full HEVC decoding, and HDMI 2.0 with 4Kp60 support. If that's the case, they should set the standard for HTPC builds. Trying to determine if I should just pop GTX 960's in my HTPC's, or wait for these...

 

[aphexcoil]

I'm just surprised that Skylake is out this year and we only have one named successor called "Cannonlake" and nothing from Intel after that. For the first time in as long as I can remember, we aren't looking out 3-4+ generations of CPU codenames. It's like it just stops -- which is weird, because if Intel makes it to 10nm, Cannonlake is a dye shrink, so there isn't any reason why they can't make a new architecture afterwards.

I guess we're coming up to the end of Moore's law after all.

 

[Outbreaker]

I'm sure that "Cannonlake" will be out in 2017 and that we get a Skyleak refresh in 2016.

 

[Liger88]

I am still on my i5-2500k, and I still see no reason to upgrade. I am also getting the itch too, haha

We all are lol. Built my system 1 1/2 years ago still using Sandy Bridge and I still feel odd/dirty about doing so when two generations have already come out. That's how lackluster the CPU world is right now.

Intel's hyping Skylake up like they did with Haswell. They better deliver on the secrecy and "rumored" ground breaking architecture. They are partially to blame for the PC market woes when ironically they blamed Windows 8/8.1. Nobody wants to buy a marginally faster CPU year after year. That's not how the psyche works.

 

[Nicholars]

I think the "groundbreaking architecture" will mainly be GPU, wireless, power savings etc. and maybe 10-20% increase in CPU speed.

Slow CPU progress is ok with me as I prefer to just add new GPU's!

 

[QuiteSufficient]

and maybe 10-20% increase in CPU speed.

.......ah ha.......ahahahaha

 

[Brahmzy]

10-20% lololololol

 

[Skyblue]

I'm just surprised that Skylake is out this year and we only have one named successor called "Cannonlake" and nothing from Intel after that. For the first time in as long as I can remember, we aren't looking out 3-4+ generations of CPU codenames. It's like it just stops -- which is weird, because if Intel makes it to 10nm, Cannonlake is a dye shrink, so there isn't any reason why they can't make a new architecture afterwards.

I guess we're coming up to the end of Moore's law after all.

The end of consumer cpu needs. Any cpu is fine for 98% of the users. The power in a phone is enough for most.

 

[chrcoluk]

yeah it wouldnt surprise me if phone cpus overtake desktops as they rapidly gain performance every year.

I think intel is doing this to maximise profits, why do a 50% performance boost hwen you can get away with 10%?

Smartphones do the same thing with ram, the increase in ram on smartphones is very slow, again to maximise profits.

 

[maverick786us]

Couple of months ago, I read an artical, where Intel said, that it is trying to re-invent desktops. So if they slow down the development of desktop CPUs, because of popularity with mobile CPUs, then Intel's purpose will not be fulfilled

 

[drescherjm]

I think intel is doing this to maximise profits, why do a 50% performance boost hwen you can get away with 10%?

To me its all in the silicon. So far the 22nm process was not significantly better than the 32nm process when it comes to 4GHz+ operation. Whether or not this was intentional or not I do not know. I am leaning towards not intentional and I am scared that 14nm will not improve on 32nm at 4GHz either.

 

[limitedaccess]

It isn't really all that complicated of a situation as long as people are willing to be open minded and look beyond their own situations.

Intel seems to be prioritizing efficiency, density and performance through density/efficiency over performance in new designs. This also completely makes sense if you actually look at what the current market dynamics are.

The vast majority of consumers simply look at the CPU (really the entire computer) as a tool or really appliance, it just needs to be able to perform enough to get the job done (and even maybe look stylish like an appliance). THey are not going to buy a CPU that is faster just because it is faster if it nets no real world noticeable benefit for them.

Even in the gaming market you may see less emphasis being placed upon CPU performance with the introduction of the new low level APIs.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

ddr4 shows no real improvement in games and other programs so I fail to see why anyone would still upgrade.

intel should have made the Skylake as a standard and affordable 6/8 core CPU to get attention from the PC crowd.

I mean, who do they have over there at Intel, its almost like internet is a sin for them to use, therefore they cant see what people really want in order to upgrade.

for crying out loud, our cell phones will be more powerful than our cpu's in ten years from now the way its going, that's how bad it is.

We are a small market, sure it makes some fluff when something new and crazy comes out, but most people who buy computers don't hear about it and have no idea what Intel or AMD is, all they know is this ultrabook claims X many hours run time, I don't know anyone who uses the full power of their current CPU (outside of the VERY few PC gamers I know in real life), 98% of the people I know would get and notice far more of a change going to a SSD, than any kind of CPU/RAM upgrade. However the mobile area is where it is at, most people I know today don't even have desktops anymore, hell, most people at work are given laptops with docking stations, outside of real workstations and gaming, that power is not needed, and when it is, there are already solutions there for it.

 

[TroyX]

I get what you're saying but I always thought that these Intel "K" CPU's were for the small market.

I don't see them in cellphones, ultrabooks, tablets, and so on.

I see no place for this mainstream Skylake K series when it comes out, but, if it had 6 cores then I would consider it, mostly due to increased DX12 CPU scaling across 8 physical cores.

So, I don't see why Intel even bothered to release the 4 core "K" series Skylake, its almost like they want you to buy it only for its onboard GPU, really? who needs that when there is a cheaper alternative with a far better performance.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

I get what you're saying but I always thought that these Intel "K" CPU's were for the small market.

I don't see them in cellphones, ultrabooks, tablets, and so on.

I see no place for this mainstream Skylake K series when it comes out, but, if it had 6 cores then I would consider it, mostly due to increased DX12 CPU scaling across 8 physical cores.

So, I don't see why Intel even bothered to release the 4 core "K" series Skylake, its almost like they want you to buy it only for its onboard GPU, really? who needs that when there is a cheaper alternative with a far better performance.

Because people buy them and it costs them nothing, these are more or less just the better batches, it doesn't cost more to make, but they get to stick a higher price on them. However, to make a whole new chip, just for this little market, would make no sense, when if you want a 6-8 core you can already get one. Most gaming does not see a gain with that many cores, and if you do need that many, you are probably using a program better suited to the workstation or server CPU market.

 

[drescherjm]

So, I don't see why Intel even bothered to release the 4 core "K" series Skylake, its almost like they want you to buy it only for its onboard GPU, really?

Because the K CPU will be the same silicon as all other 4 core Skylake desktop processors. i5s and i7s are the same exact silicon just with features disabled to create different CPUs. It would be more expensive to make a separate die for a 6 core /12 threaded K only part on the mainstream.

 

[Dan_D]

I don't know anyone who uses more than 4 sata ports due to cheap SSD's nowdays, but I believe you, you like the new shiny stuff, so do I and I am a sucker too because maybe I will end up buying Skylake too

I was just hoping that I will convince my self not to by speaking out here, I hope it works.

Well I wanted more than 2 native SATA 6Gb/s ports. X79 doesn't give you that.

 

[Michaelius]

I don't know anyone who uses more than 4 sata ports due to cheap SSD's nowdays, but I believe you, you like the new shiny stuff, so do I and I am a sucker too because maybe I will end up buying Skylake too

I was just hoping that I will convince my self not to by speaking out here, I hope it works.

I use 6 sata ports because of cheap SSDs

 

[Simmonz]

PC Gamer has
some details leaked about Skylake. It could be BS but might be true as well.

 

[QuiteSufficient]

I don't think the i7 will have a measly 200mhz boost clock. They've been going with 37xx, 47xx, 57xx, etc naming since Ivy Bridge. The rest might be fairly accurate - its not as if there is a ton left to guesswork after the last 4 generations.

 

[chrcoluk]

for reference I am currently using 7 sata ports in this rig.

5 hdd's
1 sdd
1 optical drive

 

[Titansfan]

So this might be a silly question, but would the inclusion of the iGPU on the Skylake K CPU have any detrimental effects that would make the 4790K a better option everything else being equal? Mainly as it relates to temps...

 

[limitedaccess]

4790k has has one as well and so has every mobile/mainstream desktop Core series CPU since Sandybridge from Intel (ix-2xxx series).

 

[chenw]

If you have a discrete GPU, it will automatically switch off the iGPU so there should be no issues with temp from that.

So far I have not heard anything about the presence of iGPU being a hinderance. There is always the option of the Xeon chips though, but you cannot OC those, kinda making taking out of the iGPU pointless

 

[StormUP]

I'm using 3 SATA ports and an mSATA SSD. I can easily see people using more than 4 SATA devices.

Theoretically a larger gpu gives a larger die. If that flu is disabled and unpowered it should decrease temps as it will give a larger contact area with the heat sink. That of course assumes a standalone guy in the box.

 

[Titansfan]

Woops, I didn't realize the 4790K had an iGPU already haha. Thanks for all the responses guys.

New question, gun to your head, 6700K or 5820K with everything else being equal?

 

[limitedaccess]

Well we do not know final Skylake numbers at the moment.

It comes down to your workload. Skylake wll likely be faster per core but not fast enough to erase the 50% higher core advantage of the 5820k in perfectly scaled workloads.

Then there are the platform differences to consider.

 

[Henri108]

Woops, I didn't realize the 4790K had an iGPU already haha. Thanks for all the responses guys.

New question, gun to your head, 6700K or 5820K with everything else being equal?

Gaming will be 6700K, workstation will be 5820K.

 

[AndreRio]

im not impressed. my next computer will probably be a 2011-3.

 

[drescherjm]

im not impressed. my next computer will probably be a 2011-3.

For my windows workstation that currently has an i7 970 I will have to wait till at minimum Skylake-E for an upgrade. For the linux PVR an i5 Skylake would be a great upgrade from my core2quad. And the laptop a Broadwell or Skylake would do well there from the core2 laptop.

Although with all of this said there has been no word on 14nm overclocking. I hope that the lower turbo of the i7 6700K skylake is not telling us the answer.

 

[Teenyman45]

I don't know anyone who uses more than 4 sata ports due to cheap SSD's nowdays, but I believe you, you like the new shiny stuff, so do I and I am a sucker too because maybe I will end up buying Skylake too

I was just hoping that I will convince my self not to by speaking out here, I hope it works.

I use 8 SATA ports and would use more if they were available without an add-in card, but either of those things would necessitate getting a new motherboard.

 

[aldamon]

Hey maybe by the time we get a worthwhile CPU upgrade, DDR4 will be priced reasonably. Silver lining.

 

[Marcdaddy]

Well, im going to wait for this CPU to come out and then be benched by HardOcp before buying it. My 2600K @ 4800Mhz has stood the test of time, ive had 3 6970s in tri fire , 3 7970s in tri fire, 3 780gtxs in tri sli and now 3 980 Gtxs in SLI in the rig and ive never had any gaming issues with low FPS hehe. I really want to get rid of this thing too, Wondering if ill be holding onto this until PCI express 4.0/Pascal?