7 ms·
I am planning in buying a 4690K LOTS of people keep nagging me that I should go for a Skylake instead, just because it is "newer" and "better because it is new
by speeder 11y ago
I am planning in buying a 4690K
LOTS of people keep nagging me that I should go for a Skylake instead, just because it is "newer" and "better because it is new"
I really don't understand that logic.
Beside the thing pointed in the article, Skylake has other problems:
Win7 don't work properly in it (and Win7 is the last Windows to emulate old DirectX versions correctly on Windows itself).
Skylake wasn't design to support analog video at all, something that is still common in third world countries, specially as people keep using old monitors that never break, and are frequently superior to almost all reasonably priced new monitors.
Skylake doesn't support OSX (and there are people with reasons to want that).
Skylake uses DDR4, that in third world might not be even available for sale, or might have some insane prices (2, 3 times the DDR3 price).
Skylake has a couple bugs, and more might pop up in the future.
except in US and maybe some EU countries, the price to build a Skylake system is higher than the speed benefit it gives compared to Haswell (usually at most 10%, frequently less...).
EDIT: I would also like to point out that Devil Canyons has been reported to work with DDR3 up to 2666 with no issue, some mobos allow Devil Canyons to go up to DDR3 2800 without erroring or being unstable.
The thing is, those DDR3 can ALSO reach much lower latency than similar bandwidth DDR4, the few DDR3 vs DDR4 benchmarks done so far, show that usually there is no difference, and when there IS a difference, is usually DDR3 winning.
- TD-Linux 11y agoEven in the US, it doesn't really make sense. Especially with the Xeon parts. You do get a much nicer integrated GPU though, if you use that.
- rz2k 11y agoWill the inclusion of HEVC/H.265 decoding in the integrated graphics be beneficial? On an older MacBook Pro I have with Intel HD Graphics 3000, the fans go beserk on video that my iPad handles with passive cooling without even becoming warm. I can imagine the codecs used on everything you encounter on regular sites will quickly begin to expect optimizations built into Skylake.
- cmurf 11y agoYeah why is that? My Macbook goes nuts like a hair dryer on full when playing a youtube video, where the giant ipad with the same dimension and resolution video is all yawn.
- grrowl 11y agoAs mentioned in the grandparent, iPads/iPhones/iPods have native hardware H.265 decoding. The iPods have have dedicated MPEG decoding hardware since the early days (one of the advantages of copying/transcoding all music via iTunes), which keeps workload down.
- rz2k 11y agoI suppose there isn't much of a market in general purpose computers anymore compared to iOS devices, but is there another reason Apple wouldn't start an arms race in specialized hardware graphics chips based on what they are doing for iOS devices? By that, I mean specialized for low power video playback specifically, rather than high end graphics processing suitable for content creation and games.
- ekianjo 11y ago> As mentioned in the grandparent, iPads/iPhones/iPods have native hardware H.265 decoding There's no h265 streaming anywhere at this stage. You meant h264?
- sambe 11y agoAbsence of streaming doesn't mean it's not supported in hardware. There are quite a few rumours of support in hardware from A8 onwards but nothing official from a quick Google. Several sources saying it's used in FaceTime.
- rz2k 11y agoI really prefer integrated graphics if they're passable, because graphics card problems are a large part of the discussions in support problems. An even older Mac Pro I had, at age three, began taking a hairdryer on the graphics card to get it to reliably boot. However, while that older MacBook Pro is just new enough to handle virtual machines pretty well, and the CPU is fine for everything I wouldn't already decide to send to a cluster somewhere, the graphics are a reason to get rid of it. I'd like to get an enormous UHD monitor to put on the wall across the room, plus models get dropped from future OS X versions almost entirely based on graphics capabilities now. I think this post misses some of the benefits of the new architecture that will eventually be realized.
- zvrba 11y ago> Skylake doesn't support OSX (and there are people with reasons to want that). It's the other way around though?
- sounds 11y agoHave you considered using a Xeon since you're looking at a 4690K? You might appreciate this tip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11455701 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11455701
- speeder 11y agoI need high single thread performance, and at most 4 cores for the occasional 4 thread software. This is why I am going for a "k" processor, and why it is an i5 instead of i7
- Gelob 11y agoskylake works fine on OSX, even hackintosh.
- emp_zealoth 11y agoive recently bought an 4690 (and 16GB low latency DDR3 ram) - it is a goddamn beast, especially considering it was an upgrade from C2D E8400 and 4GB of crappy old DDR2 My advice though is: look at PCI passthrough, for example 4670 has all the tech required, 4670K doesn't, 4690K does again As soon as vm's get good enough for a semi-newb like me to work it,im moving to Linux host (running on i7's GPu) with vm Windows (with its own pci-passthrough discrete GPU) Caaaaant wait!
- j_s 11y agoCan link to / provide additional detail on the Windows 7 issues? How weird that an OS simply doesn't work on a processor!
- andersen1488 11y ago>except in US and maybe some EU countries, the price to build a Skylake system is higher than the speed benefit it gives compared to Haswell (usually at most 10%, frequently less...). Honestly, even in the US I don't think it's worth it. I thought about upgrading from my Haswell i5 and the benchmarks are actually lower on a single core. Unless you truly need the Hyperthreading there's no point in upgrading.