Waiting for Skylake?

[ZmanFTW]

I am currently going to school learning to repair computer and electronic systems in automobiles. So tools I need are yet another reason I am planning on Skylake/Cannonlake. I would love to do Skylake-E or Cannonlake-E though. I just have to see where I am at financially first. In the mean time I will collect the parts that are available.

 

I started this post because I wanted to see who (if anyone) besides myself is so much of a PC enthusiast that they are already planning for Skylake.

[ericlee30]

Although, I think we can all agree the Z platform people get jipped, especially with the PCIe-based storage solutions now coming out. 16 lanes, hell, even 20, is way too few. Hell if you can't run a dual GPU card alongside an M.2 2x at the very least, you have far too few pcie lanes. If Intel would make an X99-platform chip with 4.4 GHz clock rate, it would make X99 worth it for the vast majority of people looking at the 4790k and not being able to jump because of this pcie issue.

Completely agree with you.

[patrickjp93]

I am currently going to school learning to repair computer and electronic systems in automobiles. So tools I need are yet another reason I am planning on Skylake/Cannonlake. I would love to do Skylake-E or Cannonlake-E though. I just have to see where I am at financially first. In the mean time I will collect the parts that are available.

 

I started this post because I wanted to see who (if anyone) besides myself is so much of a PC enthusiast that they are already planning for Skylake.

I'll consider cannonlake or skylake refresh MAYBE only because I know AMD's Kaveri hit a big speed bump and I don't want to be caught unawares by Skylake POSSIBLY doing the same.

 

I have several elite-class machines, but I want the satisfaction of having one that requires no discrete GPU for GW2. As hard as Intel seems to be going towards iGPU, I'm secretly hoping a bit x119/139 start coming with onboard graphics. Real enthusiasts will find ways to leverage the new architecture for better performance.

 

Sidenote: DIE VGA! DIE ALREADY!!! DVI YOU TOO!

[ZmanFTW]

Yeah the difference between on-board sound and sound card while negligible for most people makes a big difference when you are recording multiple tracks. I want studio monitors as far as speakers but the best ones are crazy expensive. Just like you usually cannot tell the diffrence between 16-bit/24-bit versions of the same song.

[patrickjp93]

Yeah the difference between on-board sound and sound card while negligible for most people makes a big difference when you are recording multiple tracks. I want studio monitors as far as speakers but the best ones are crazy expensive. Just like you usually cannot tell the diffrence between 16-bit/24-bit versions of the same song.

16 vs. 24 bit I've always been able to tell, but I've been in choirs all my life and I have very keen ears due to the voice lessons and hours of rehearsal and performance.

[-iSynthesis]

The only major difference (for these purposes) is how much remains in page files and how much is held together by the ultra-low power state Win 8 takes advantage of instead of completely shutting down.

Well i dont know how windows works, but if i completly shut down and take power from my pc, i know it boots in no more than 5 seconds (win 8). I know aswell, that my sister has the exact same ssd in her pc and that it boots in about 30 seconds.

[patrickjp93]

Well i dont know how windows works, but if i completly shut down and take power from my pc, i know it boots in no more than 5 seconds (win 8). I know aswell, that my sister has the exact same ssd in her pc and that it boots in about 30 seconds.

From the moment you hit power to hitting desktop? BS. Even the 4960x isn't that fast.

[-iSynthesis]

From the moment you hit power to hitting desktop? BS. Even the 4960x isn't that fast.

Doesnt have to do much with processor, almost any processor is going to be fast enough to process the data of any drive. My sisters ultrabook boots in less than 5 secs, mine takes a bit longer.

[patrickjp93]

Doesnt have to do much with processor, almost any processor is going to be fast enough to process the data of any drive. My sisters ultrabook boots in less than 5 secs, mine takes a bit longer.

there are mobile versions of OS which are highly slimmed down so as to extend battery life.

 

And no, from the time you hit power button to getting onto your desktop screen, no one has that kind of speed.

[-iSynthesis]

there are mobile versions of OS which are highly slimmed down so as to extend battery life.

 

And no, from the time you hit power button to getting onto your desktop screen, no one has that kind of speed.

Well, even my seagate did it in 20 seconds from power button start. 

[Deletive]

Yea, I can't see the Core i7-6770K being released anytime before 2016.

It wont. Skylake will release in 2015 but skylake-K isn't going to realize for awhile. 

Jun 29th 2015 is my guess of the release of skylake.

[patrickjp93]

It wont. Skylake will release in 2015 but skylake-K isn't going to realize for awhile. 

Jun 29th 2015 is my guess of the release of skylake.

Skylake mobile is slated for mid-late 2015, and the desktop parts are Q4 at the earliest.

[home boy]

Although, I think we can all agree the Z platform people get jipped, especially with the PCIe-based storage solutions now coming out. 16 lanes, hell, even 20, is way too few. Hell if you can't run a dual GPU card alongside an M.2 2x at the very least, you have far too few pcie lanes. If Intel would make an X99-platform chip with 4.4 GHz clock rate, it would make X99 worth it for the vast majority of people looking at the 4790k and not being able to jump because of this pcie issue.

 

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying here.   Are you saying that an 'X' chipset is the way to go because it will offer more PCIe lanes?

As you stated, the Z170 chipset is expected to have 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes, but the X99 only has 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes.  So, how are Z platform people getting jipped?

Instead of Z170 Skylake, what would be a better alternative?   I'm not flaming you, I think you are onto something, but I don't know what it is.  Thanks

[patrickjp93]

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying here.   Are you saying that an 'X' chipset is the way to go because it will offer more PCIe lanes?

As you stated, the Z170 chipset is expected to have 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes, but the X99 only has 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes.  So, how are Z platform people getting jipped?

Instead of Z170 Skylake, what would be a better alternative?   I'm not flaming you, I think you are onto something, but I don't know what it is.  Thanks

X99 supports 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes.

[DirkW]

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying here.   Are you saying that an 'X' chipset is the way to go because it will offer more PCIe lanes?

As you stated, the Z170 chipset is expected to have 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes, but the X99 only has 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes.  So, how are Z platform people getting jipped?

Instead of Z170 Skylake, what would be a better alternative?   I'm not flaming you, I think you are onto something, but I don't know what it is.  Thanks

 

By the way: this thread is about half a year old (last post before yours was from July).

 

X99 supports 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes.

 

Not quite. Actually X99 provides only 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes as of itself. Of course it also supports CPUs that again provide 28 or 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes.

[patrickjp93]

By the way: this thread is about half a year old (last post before yours was from July).

 

 

Not quite. Actually X99 provides only 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes as of itself. Of course it also supports CPUs that again provide 28 or 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes.

[DirkW]

Might sound a bit picky, I know, but Z170 was at least rumored to provide more lanes (and these also being PCIe 3.0 instead of 2.0) from the chipset (not yet counting the upcoming CPUs) - and I guess that's what he was trying to point at.