I see Intel 6th gen Skylake has arrived, only in 4 core on Socket-LGA-1151 so far. 

http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Components/cat/Processors-Intel/subcat/Socket-LGA-1151-Skylake


It looks to be about 10% more efficient than Haswell and roughly the same performance per MHz, however Skylake should overclock higher. 

Z170 motherboard is needed which would also support DDR4 in dual channel memory architecture.

That's about it really, no 6 or 8 core versions with quad channel memory architecture yet.

! No longer available

  The 4790K is really holding in there well, seems like everything is being compared to it,  I just learned the mother boards for both processors have M.2 which is my main point of interest for me.  The M.2 port for the 4790 is only 10 Gbps.  Lots of options.
Carl2

Once a new gen CPU is released they normally stop manufacture of the previous gen, personally I wouldn't look back at the previous gen, go for the new stuff when considering a new build.

Skylake is the most efficient CPU to date. Just no 6 or 8 cores versions yet.

  Since I haven't looked at the computer hardware in ages it's been an interesting learning experience, lots of new technologies.  For me the largest improvement was the SSD which I put in this computer after trying raid to reduce boot time form about 1 1/2 min.  Probably why I'm so interested in the M.2.  I'm not sure why standard Hd's still exist except for the fact that they lower prices.   Along the same line Intel is putting graphics into the cpu's which is a waste for me but probably reduces prices again.
  Over all we are making progress, a faster more reliable computer at a price the majority of the people can afford. 
Carl2

I agree Carl2, SSD was a huge improvement, probably the best we have ever seen. Sandybridge and UEFI BIOS were good leap forwards too but yeah not as great a leap as SSD. 

Still, I have to keep up-to-date with what's going on with PC hardware for my business and customers.  Luckily I enjoy it as well 

  I took computer programing back in the 60's and thought it was great, it told you where the error was and gave you the line.  The computer used vacuum tubes and input was on paper tape.  At work we had a computer made by Digital Equipment, about the size of a very large refrigerator, it used a spool of magnetic tape.  I bought a inexpensive computer as a trial in the 80's so I've seen a lot of improvements over time. 
  I remember Intel when it sold electronic chips, then it came out with a processor.  My boss and a friend started a company and made a system that kept track of all the inventory using the processor for Burger King.
God I feel old now and I'll add the computers used in cars are great.
Carl2

I have no idea what computers in the 60's were like, I didn't start until the 80's, must be good to have the basic background knowledge.

I'm still interested in what Skylake has to offer and found some more videos. The integrated graphics has improved quite nicely matching performance of something like a $100 graphics card, I honestly think that it's now good enough for none gamers, making light work of every day graphics requirements. I have a customer who uses integrated graphics for all their gaming and is happy with it. 




And the integrated graphics.

  As far as graphics I can remember having a computer ages ago that had a hard time keeping up with a photo editor, paint shop pro.  There was a fairly large delay in the brush movement and the pixels changing colors.  That was ages ago and I can't remember any of the hardware.  I didn't realize it but this computer has a 130 W CPU and no built in graphics.  The HP that is newer has built in graphics but I put a video card in anyways. 
  I'd think built in graphics has a lot of advantages for laptops both because of size and economics and as far as video for desktops don't even think about it.
  Seems I like the big power hungry CPU's, if it needs electricity give it to them

If you want a very fast booting PC I wouldn't bother putting a graphics card in it unless you need it for gaming or maybe GPU rendering, putting in a card will slow down the boot a tad.

All well and good if your MoBo has built-in graphics, but for me, a faster boot time is secondary to actually seeing something.

Quote from: DaveMorton on September 22, 2015, 18:25:11 PM
All well and good if your MoBo has built-in graphics,

Dave what are you saying here, the Skylake chips that are available today have the graphics GPU built in to the CPU, there is no graphics built-in on the mobo, you do realise that don't you ? 

  Possibly Dave is thinking of the big power hungry CPU's with no graphics.  I personally would allow a small delay for loading drivers while hoping to make up that time with the M.2.  Both of the computers I have have graphics cards and both have very reasonable boot times with the SSD's especially when compared to the standard drive which I found intolerable.
    your MoBo has built-in graphics, yes Dave should explain that.

Yes, CPU, rather than MoBo (technically, though the motherboard has to also support it, as well). Just a mistake in description there. Oops? The CPU/MoBo combo that I'm currently using has no provision at all for OBG (I chose it just for that reason), and as Carl has indicated, that combination is, indeed, rather power-hungry. But it does what I need quite admirably, and I have no budget or interest at present to change it.

Forgive me I thought this was the Intel Skylake thread, I was going to say stick an M.2 on one off them new babies with no graphics card and see how fast that boots. Carl was saying in other threads that boot time was one of his priorities.

After experiencing Intel integrated graphics in real life on many computers I think its very good these days. Unless you are a hardcore gamer or require multiple monitors. 

But what do I know, I'm only a professional hardware guru.

Point taken.