|
Only thing keeping me away from that chip is the pittance of L3 cache.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Only thing keeping me away from that chip is the pittance of L3 cache. When you're not using the iGPU, you have 128MiB L4 cache, that's the main attraction. But yeah, it's down 2MiB on L3 cache compared to other recent i7s. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
I appreciate all of the replies - they confirmed a lot of what I had kind of suspected: that the 2500k is basically amazing and I could continue to stretch it out even now 4 years later. I'll likely order a Hyper 212 and see how it fits in my case. I guess the whole thing kind of hinges on how badly I want to build that second gaming PC. If I end up doing that I will likely get an i5 6600k, a new full sized mobo and RAM for the current PC. Then a case, HDD, PSU and mid range GPU to combine with that i5 2500k for gaming on the projector. The prospect of having a reasonably spec'd second PC might just be too tempting to pass up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Psmith posted:I appreciate all of the replies - they confirmed a lot of what I had kind of suspected: that the 2500k is basically amazing and I could continue to stretch it out even now 4 years later. I'll likely order a Hyper 212 and see how it fits in my case. I guess the whole thing kind of hinges on how badly I want to build that second gaming PC. Save some cash and get one of those Kangaroo PC's to stream games from your main PC on the projector! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Psmith posted:I appreciate all of the replies - they confirmed a lot of what I had kind of suspected: that the 2500k is basically amazing and I could continue to stretch it out even now 4 years later. I'll likely order a Hyper 212 and see how it fits in my case. I guess the whole thing kind of hinges on how badly I want to build that second gaming PC. Only thing to confirm is that you have enough USB3 ports (you need 3x USB3 and 1x USB2). My mITX 2500k build only has 2x USB3 (and those just recently poo poo the bed) which will require me to upgrade. If you're really specing for Oculus Rift then it's worth it to check with their compatibility checker. Fatal fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:When you're not using the iGPU, you have 128MiB L4 cache, that's the main attraction. But yeah, it's down 2MiB on L3 cache compared to other recent i7s. How well is L4 cache transferred to L3?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Psmith posted:I appreciate all of the replies - they confirmed a lot of what I had kind of suspected: that the 2500k is basically amazing and I could continue to stretch it out even now 4 years later. Yeah, this is definitely true. I found an article the other day comparing an i7-965@3.67GHz, which is a few years older than the 2500K, to a 6700K at 4.7 using a Titan X to maximize any CPU bottlenecking. The absolute highest difference I saw was around 20% and most games were less than 10%. Considering that I am only using a 7850 for the moment I'm at least going to wait for Pascal/Polaris to see if there's any reason to consider a platform replacement. Boiled Water posted:How well is L4 cache transferred to L3? I think it's typical for each level of cache to take a CPU cycle or two to load information from the next level down, but that's a lot better than the 10+ cycles that going to main memory takes. Not sure if there are any articles getting deep into Broadwell architecture that could clear it up. Ed.: The graph here seems to indicate that it's a lot more than one cycle but still only around half the time that accessing main memory takes. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
at this point, going to ram costs >100 cycles, easily. probably 100s of cycles, even. CPUs got faster and memory got higher-bandwidth, but the latency (in seconds) pretty much stayed the same for years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Did anything ever happen with the Skylake bending issues? (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/12/intel-skylake-cpus-bent-and-broken-by-some-third-party-coolers/) I've looked but I can't find an update. I have two 6700ks and I would really like to not have to replace them when I move in August.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Most coolers are perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Just limit the amount of your retard strength you use when tightening and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Just limit the amount of your retard strength you use when tightening and you'll be fine. I actually have pure rock BE QUIET!s on them, and the screws had stops (which I screwed to), though it seemed like it would be exerting a lot of pressure. pure rock has conflicting forum posts talking about it, so I figured I'd ask. I build my own PCs, but I treat them like appliances and I'd really rather never remove the heatsink unless it's life or death because cleaning heatsink compound is a huge pain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
lDDQD posted:at this point, going to ram costs >100 cycles, easily. probably 100s of cycles, even. CPUs also got a lot better at prefetch, which helped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Why is it I always seem to lose the real lottery and the chip lottery when it comes to CPU. Tried to OC my 6600K and I think I can only get it to around 4.1 if even that before wacky things start happening. For once I'd like to 'win' and get one that can OC to 5.2 or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
real_scud posted:
Buy a powerball ticket while you are at it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
real_scud posted:For once I'd like to 'win' and get one that can OC to 5.2 or something. Try LN2. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
From what I understand, based on the reading I've done, right now I'd be better off upgrading from my 2500k to a 4790k, rather than Skylake, right? Nothing wrong with the 2500k I know, but I'm looking to upgrade very soon, and I can't really wait any longer to upgrade to a faster processor (and I'm interested in what i7 has to offer, as I use some very CPU-intensive apps). I guess my only question is whether the 4790k can overclock as well as the 2500k could? My 2500k gets 4.2ghz on stock voltage, and with a minor voltage bump I'm running it at 4.5ghz stable right now. Can I expect to push a 4790k to ~4.5ghz or is that unlikely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:03
|
|
Swartz posted:From what I understand, based on the reading I've done, right now I'd be better off upgrading from my 2500k to a 4790k, rather than Skylake, right? A 4790k will do 4.5 easy, probably 4.6. Of course it's default boost clock is 4.4 so that's not all that much of an OC. You will want a good HSF, the 4790k runs pretty toasty even without an OC. The 6700k will go just as high if not higher and generally needs less cooling, plus you get a newer motherboard and socket type which would be nice for the future. Of course the 6700k's inflated price brings X99 and the 5820k into contention, you would need a good cooler to bring it up to 4.4 but six cores is awfully tempting if you do heavily multithreaded workloads. Clear as mud, eh? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:six cores is awfully tempting if you do heavily multithreaded workloads. This was my thought unless you mean something different by "I'm interested in what i7 has to offer". An LGA2011 chip would give you full extra cores in addition to the fractional capabilities of the HT logical cores and would still be overclockable, although not quite as high as four-core chips on average. On your first question though, I don't know of any way in which desktop Haswell chips are superior to Skylake except price and ability to handle certain large exponents in Prime95.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Well poo poo, not sure how I was misinformed. Yeah, 6700k is tempting, hopefully the price comes down....a lot. Six core would be nice, but it's not that necessary for me, a good quad-core should be sufficient. *Edit* Nevermind the price complaint. A 6700k, nice motherboard, and 16gb of decent DDR4 RAM only puts me ~$120 above the previous price for the planned 4790k system. Not bad. Swartz fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Swartz posted:Well poo poo, not sure how I was misinformed. Yeah, 6700k is tempting, hopefully the price comes down....a lot. Six core would be nice, but it's not that necessary for me, a good quad-core should be sufficient. You can probably get 6 cores for that same price, that's why its worth pricing out right now. Locally to me a 6-core 5820K is $50 cheaper than a 6700K, which makes up for the difference in motherboard cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
In addition to that you also get more PCI-e lanes and double the memory bandwith (if that matters to your workloads). You can also install a lot more memory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
If you have a skylake CPU, you need to upgrade to windows 10 in the next 18 months or lose support: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/skylake-users-given-18-months-to-upgrade-to-windows-10/ Also, from now on Microsoft won't support new CPUs that come out on anything other than the most current version of windows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Lose support how?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Lose support how? They will stop providing all but the most essential security updates for PCs with skylake or newer CPUs that aren't running Windows 10, and they won't do any work to ensure older versions of Windows run correctly on newer CPUs. Basically, in the future, if you want to buy a new CPU, you will be expected at a minimum to use whatever version of Windows was the newest when that CPU came out. So essentially no more building a new PC and putting Windows 7 on it for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
That doesn't seem offensive to me in the least. But then again my computers are either brand new and windows 10 machines, or decades old xp boxes chained to scientific instruments so I won't have issues either way. I can also see why MS would like to shorten the life of windows they want to support. Supporting an OS, I assume, is expensive as all balls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
That seems a little draconian, don't you think? I would guess that they would merely neglect to add support for any new architectural features that may appear in any future CPU designs to older versions of Windows. You'd still be able to run win7 on a core i7 9700K, but it may not be able to take advantage of all the new features. Also, backwards-compatibility is kinda x86's thing. It's still got support for archaic 16-bit instructions, so if your 1970s-vintage 8088 dies of old age, you can replace it with a Skylake, and continue using DOS 1.0.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
lDDQD posted:That seems a little draconian, don't you think? I would guess that they would merely neglect to add support for any new architectural features that may appear in any future CPU designs to older versions of Windows. You'd still be able to run win7 on a core i7 9700K, but it may not be able to take advantage of all the new features. Also, backwards-compatibility is kinda x86's thing. It's still got support for archaic 16-bit instructions, so if your 1970s-vintage 8088 dies of old age, you can replace it with a Skylake, and continue using DOS 1.0. Apparently it wastes huge amounts of Microsoft's resources, and that of other hardware vendors too. I think it's a good thing for people to be given a shove towards keeping their operating system up to date for many reasons, especially when many people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into embracing change. I'm sure there would still be people buying new PCs and putting XP on it if they could. I don't have an issue with it as long as Microsoft continues following the Apple style model they've taken with windows 10 of letting people move to new OS versions for free, and only having to buy windows when you buy a new computer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
I just want Windows 8's UI back
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Said nobody, ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:They will stop providing all but the most essential security updates for PCs with skylake or newer CPUs that aren't running Windows 10, and they won't do any work to ensure older versions of Windows run correctly on newer CPUs. Microsoft has never done work to ensure older versions of Windows run "correctly" on newer CPUs, because if Windows can't run correctly on it then installs would fail, and they don't provide modified installers for certain CPUs. Additionally, Windows 7 and 8 are already approaching the point where they transition from regular security updates into the "essential" updates. Windows Vista ended mainstream support a while ago and loses all support in March 2017. Windows 7 ended "mainstream support" on January 13, 2015 and plain Windows 8 ended "mainstream support" sometime this month. Windows 8.1 doesn't end it until January 9, 2018, butMicrosoft moves to the fewer updates thing pretty soon anyway for it. So really, they're doing absolutely nothing different, just restating what they already did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:That doesn't seem offensive to me in the least. But then again my computers are either brand new and windows 10 machines, or decades old xp boxes chained to scientific instruments so I won't have issues either way. Our lab is currently approaching the point where we have to consolidate all XP boxes into an old equipment pool as replacements for mission critical/expensive lab equipment that won't run on anything newer. Our office PCs are just starting to get upgraded to Windows 7  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 20:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Intel Readies a 5.1 GHz Xeon Chip Based on the "Broadwell" Architecture uhhhhh e: Wait, this doesn't make sense. Why would Intel want to stomp on their own upcoming Core i7 HEDT lineup? Sidesaddle Cavalry fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jan 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Apparently it wastes huge amounts of Microsoft's resources, and that of other hardware vendors too. I think it's a good thing for people to be given a shove towards keeping their operating system up to date for many reasons, especially when many people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into embracing change. I'm sure there would still be people buying new PCs and putting XP on it if they could. it's probably good on a technical level, as well as for my own personal elitism about people who use old operating systems for nebulous, poorly defined reasons, for this to happen, but lmao if you think this is about anything but microsoft desperately wanting to increase their adoption % that being said it's probably best that ms stops choking so much on the limp, unfulfilling dick of terrible programmers and stingy IT departments, though there's probably a million exceptions built into this for those people
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Intel Readies a 5.1 GHz Xeon Chip Based on the "Broadwell" Architecture
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
yeah make no mistake if you can make a convincing case(dump truck of money) Intel and MS or whoever will help you
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
How legit is play-asia? Seems to be the only site offering the 6700k for halfway reasonable prices. Presumably I'll get stuck with a load of import duties, right? (UK)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:How legit is play-asia? Seems to be the only site offering the 6700k for halfway reasonable prices. Presumably I'll get stuck with a load of import duties, right? (UK)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Microsoft has never done work to ensure older versions of Windows run "correctly" on newer CPUs There's also things like this: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3064209 quote:This update fixes several issues with Intel CPUs that could cause computer crashes or functions incorrectly. Also, this update improves the reliability of computers that uses certain Intel CPUs. Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Does releasing a new kernel for Windows 7 / 2008R2 to better support AMD processors that came out after Win 7 RTM: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2645594 not count? That was a really rare thing for them to do. The latter is an Intel microcode update, which is not created by Microsoft and not subject to their policy. Microcode updates are also delivered through BIOS/EFI updates and through packages from OEM sites. It's literally patching the CPU's firmware directly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 05:42
|
|