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 (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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clWvfkzR2cA#)
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjn61GnYkbk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjn61GnYkbk)
And the integrated graphics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmOe-JWNEzM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmOe-JWNEzM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACToBi11e2A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACToBi11e2A)
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. :P
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 ? :P
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. :P
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. :P
I've seen this happen so much at the Zabaware forum, so many people with I want this I want that. Lets say a person buys a Skylark and wants to make it as fast as possible, he says I want the cpu to spend as much time as possible on cpu related tasks and will buy a graphics card for say 200, to handle the graphics.
Since I believe Data has all the necessary software to monitor, and has all the hardware to run a test where we could see the difference in performance.
In reality I have 2 computers with 2 OS, is two OS necessary no, are 2 computers necessary no. Have I wasted money in the past yes.
Carl2
Here is a thought:
Keeping components close to each other speeds things up, we know this and Intel know it too, there is a reason they are putting the GPU on the CPU chip, it's much closer and quicker to communicate, no need to go round the houses through the PCIe bus to get to the graphics card. That is why the fastest booting PC's I have ever seen use the on chip GPU. The on chip GPU is also fully independent from the CPU and has no negative side effects that I can see.
Here is the chip layout, the GPU is independent from the CPU cores, far left on the image.
(http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-Block-Diagram.png)
I don't pretend to understand all this, but it's surprising how the shorter distance gives you noticeable boot time speeds.
Yes it's surprising but true, no drivers to send down the PCIe to communicate with the graphics card just all very close to the CPU. Its not a huge improvement but put a graphics card in and you can notice it takes a little longer to boot. No big deal but it's there.
That makes sense, and the Intel Graphics has a direct line to the video port I'd guess. The problem I see is the CPU is now doing computing for the graphics. Now I am wondering why the bios quick start up has not taken a piece of memory and stored necessary start info right in the CPU memory, if the clock still works it has power and should be able to keep the stored info for a quick start up. I will not get into a dual boot at this time.
Carl2
Quote from: Carl2 on September 23, 2015, 22:52:52 PM
The problem I see is the CPU is now doing computing for the graphics.
Not really, the GPU part of the CPU will do all the graphics tasks but none of cores will, leaving them free for everything else. If you put graphics card in then the GPU part of the CPU just sits there and does nothing.
Quote from: Carl2 on September 23, 2015, 22:52:52 PM
Now I am wondering why the bios quick start up has not taken a piece of memory and stored necessary start info right in the CPU memory, if the clock still works it has power and should be able to keep the stored info for a quick start up. I will not get into a dual boot at this time.
Intel® Rapid Start only really works when waking the computer from a deep sleep, it doesn't work with a full boot from cold. At least that is how I understand it.
https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/what-is-intel-rapid-start-technology
Data,
Thanks for the info, the gpu does not rely on the cores to process video info. I do believe I have found an exception, I just checked the Nvidia settings in control panel, I am asked to select the PhysX processor and have a choice of the CPU or the Nvidia. Hals Haptek characters use PhysX and I'm pretty sure most games make use of some PhysX.
" Intel® Rapid Start only really works when waking the computer from a deep sleep, it doesn't work with a full boot from cold." That is how I understand it also which is new info to me since I thought it was for a cold boot. What is done during sleep is transfer from active memory to the SSD an iso which is the opposite of what I was saying to conserve power.
Carl2
Yes I used to have to install PhysX to run some older games, don't have to on modern games engines but yes it's an NVidia only technology, I use AMD graphics cards. I know you like Ultra Hal Carl2 but I have never had a problem running it on AMD cards, haven't played around with Hal for many years now though. I'm sure any Skylake CPU could handle Hal with out to many problems. it isn't exactly CPU or GPU intensive, but I see your point.
I remember reading about having video cards being able to handle physics and I also remember the Haptek jiggey female that has a .Phy file that contains the physics properties. At Daz they are beginning to sell software to work with physical properties, also some software for body morphing if it encounters an object but I'm not sure if that is related. Here is a link to one http://www.daz3d.com/reality-4-daz-studio-edition (http://www.daz3d.com/reality-4-daz-studio-edition)
I do remember seeing a vid of a game and while watching it I thought that must be using a Physics file for the movement of something swinging. So is a video made while using scripting in say Daz studio and this video is played back on a regular video player.
Carl2
I know very little about Daz Studio if I'm honest, mainly concentrate on new hardware and Windows.
Both AMD and NVidia graphics cards can handle Physics these days but the software run on them needs to be able to utilise that technology, some software manufactures will tend to favour one over the other. Most modern game and 3D engines have their own Physics engine in so it wouldn't matter what make of card you have you would still be able to run it perfectly ok.
Lets cut to the chase and bring it up to date if I may, DirectX 12 is where it's at these days and Skylake fully supports DX 12.
DX12 is only supported in windows 10, as we know :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu0hbknwSnQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu0hbknwSnQ)
Quote from: Carl2 on September 24, 2015, 23:57:27 PM
I remember reading about having video cards being able to handle physics and I also remember the Haptek jiggey female that has a .Phy file that contains the physics properties. At Daz they are beginning to sell software to work with physical properties, also some software for body morphing if it encounters an object but I'm not sure if that is related. Here is a link to one http://www.daz3d.com/reality-4-daz-studio-edition (http://www.daz3d.com/reality-4-daz-studio-edition)
I do remember seeing a vid of a game and while watching it I thought that must be using a Physics file for the movement of something swinging. So is a video made while using scripting in say Daz studio and this video is played back on a regular video player.
Carl2
As far as I know today if Daz is using physics it would be for making videos and not real time like Haptek. So yes unless something new is on the horizon it would mean a regular video in a regular video player.
Freddy,
Thanks for putting that in. Quite a lot to all this, started with the Skylark CPU, got into the built in graphic, DX 12 and back to win 10.
Possibly some day this info will prove useful but I feel like I'm walking on secure footing if you know what I mean.
Carl2
It can be tough keeping up with all the changes going on with computers and software. We are all learning as we go 8)
Yep I agree with that, technology seems to change daily.
4 more Skylake CPU's have hit the market, still no 6 or 8 core but I will keep us posted.
http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Components/cat/Processors-Intel/subcat/Socket-LGA-1151-Skylake (http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Components/cat/Processors-Intel/subcat/Socket-LGA-1151-Skylake)
Looks like Intel has covered pretty much the whole spectrum of what people would want in a CPU, from the power hungry monsters to the nice energy efficient processors the nicely get the job done. Ideal for laptops with batteries, but to keep prices down they will have standard drives.
Carl2
The Skylake i5 6500 looks good to me at 65watt, nice sweet spot 8)
Did a bit of hunting around to find out when the 6 and 8 cores will arrive, it's going to a be a while.
QuoteIntel will release its next-gen High-End Desktop processor in Q3 2016 in the form of Skylake-E
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-and-av-hardware-909394553/intel-roadmap-reveals-10nm-cannonlake-and-skylake--32052522/ (http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-and-av-hardware-909394553/intel-roadmap-reveals-10nm-cannonlake-and-skylake--32052522/)
Skylake-E The extreme series, usually much higher priced. Be nice to get out of the quad series, not sure why, nice quick boot and responsive enough now. As far as the Skylake i5 6500 I just checked and the notherboard has M.2 so all is well there, but at this point in time the large majority of laptops and desktops are still using regular drives.
Carl2
Yes indeed the little i5 with an M.2 sounds like a nice build to me, I would put in my 2 SSD's as well but absolutely no spinners 8)
I believe all the 6 and 8 cores CPU's are extreme, our Freddy has the Haswell E 6 core.
Are you thinking of getting a Skylake laptop then Carl2 ?
The last 2 computers have been i7's and I've been happy with them so I'd probably stick to i7. This computer has lasted 5 years and I'm still very happy with it, guess my thinking is a i7 gives better performance and will be useful longer. Guess there is the 4790 which they compared to the 5820 and said in most applications the 4790 would still do the job.
You are right they all have the E, and interesting the frequencies are 3.3 G Hz, 3.5 G Hz 200 more for .2 Ghz and the 8 core is 3.0 G Hz. HP is still selling the 5820 for about 1200, now you have to search for it, I wouldn't be interested in it unless it has the M.2 and who knows what they did with the motherboard.
Probably the wrong thing to say but I like 140 W much better than 65 W. I probably wouldn't be able to keep it busy enough to generate 140 W but if you need it it's there for you.
Carl2
If you think you will need the i7 then go for it, I say.
The problem I see is when something new comes out that I would like to get my hands on, in this case M.2 it doesn't cost much to re-build with an i5. My i5 is easily fast enough for what I need but the form factor is now too old for M.2.
My last Mobo, CPU and RAM only cost me £230, less then I would have spent on just an i7 CPU at the time. :D
I just came across this Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyjYVjlB2B8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyjYVjlB2B8)
It's the i7 95 W and is being sold at Amazon for 350, vs the i5 for 278.
Another vid Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOh19-No2Nw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOh19-No2Nw)
in which different CPU's are compared. It seems all do the job well but by upgrading you get the 1151 motherboard which gives you lots of new features such as the M.2.
Seems both the i7 and i5 have the graphics in the chip.
Well things are moving forward, guess we have to decide which path to take I personally think things are still in development.
Carl2
Nice videos Carl2, thanks :)
Quote from: Carl2 on October 02, 2015, 14:03:19 PM
I personally think things are still in development.
Carl2
I had to chuckle at that comment, sorry my friend, isn't it the case that computers are constantly in development :D
I was thinking of a build like this:
i5 6500 @ £155
Gigabyte GA-Z170M-D3H Mobo @ £95
2 x KVR 4GB 2400MHz DDR4 @ £44
Total £294
Still at bit pricy for me, it will probably come down in a couple of months, will keep an eye on prices.
You seemed to be pretty happy with that i5, like me you like the M.2 and want to give it a try I'd say. I'm actually in the same boat there is no way I can get an M.2 into either computer. Guess I realize I'm happy with what I have. I like the 5820 with 6 cores and it is affordable, but looking at the vids it seems to eat to much power and possibly the Skylake technology would lessen this but then so far the Skylake has the on board graphics that I don't care for.
Anyways I go for Freddy's build, when he gets to the M.2 he'll be all set and I do believe it will be good enough for quite a few years.
Carl2
Found out some interesting news today:
Skylake users given 18 months to upgrade to Windows 10 (http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2016/01/skylake-users-given-18-months-to-upgrade-to-windows-10/)
In short windows 7 and 8 users will get 18 months to up-grade to windows 10 to stay secure, if they are using a Skylake CPU. After that M$ are going to stop supporting win 7 and 8.
Interesting news, a year and I/2 to use win 8 then I'll have to switch to win 10. right now windows defender is doing all the security work, I always thought it was a job for windows and they do a pretty good job.
Of course now I wonder how long win 10 will be supported and how the next version will be handled.
Carl2