Is it a bad idea to buy 4790k now?

[archvile]

We already know from betas that 10.11.2 doesn't have full Skylake support. Even if they add it in 10.11.3, it won't be out before 2016 since 10.11.2 is even out yet.

I really need to upgrade my PC, but I don't think I can wait anymore. Even though I hate the idea of buying outdated hardware, I don't think Skylake is worth the wait.

What do you guys think?

 

[rwillett]

We already know from betas that 10.11.2 doesn't have full Skylake support. Even if they add it in 10.11.3, it won't be out before 2016 since 10.11.2 is even out yet.

I really need to upgrade my PC, but I don't think I can wait anymore. Even though I hate the idea of buying outdated hardware, I don't think Skylake is worth the wait.

What do you guys think?

The extra performance of Skylake is negligible in my book. Here's a view from one site.

[TR="bgcolor: #F9F9F9"] [TR="bgcolor: #F9F9F9"] [TR="bgcolor: #F9F9F9"] [TR="bgcolor: #F9F9F9"] [TR="bgcolor: #F9F9F9"]

i7 6700K vs i7 4790K Performance Summary
Unigine Heaven Pro 4.0	No change with discrete GPU, >25% faster with onboard graphics.
PCMark 8 Pro	.5-1% increase in performance.
Geekbench 3	5% increase in multi-core performance.
Cinebench R15	1% increase in CPU performance, 1.5% decrease in GPU performance.
POV-Ray	7.7% increase in performance.
Linpack	12.5% increase in performance. *Updated using Linpack 11.3
Lightroom CC 2015	1.5-2% increase in most image handling tasks, but a huge 15% increase in image export performance. ~2-3% increase in HDR/Panorama image creation performance.
Photoshop CC 2015	8.5% increase in overall performance. Varies anywhere from .8% to 16.7% depending on the effect.
Premiere Pro CC 2015	6% increase in H.264 encoding performance, marginal increase in MPEG2 encoding performance.

Why do you think the i4790K is outdated anyway? 5-10% possible speed difference, a little cooler, a little less power. No big deal in my book. You will pay more money and you will have more hassle with Skylake until it matures under OSX.

By the time Skylake is ready and mature, there will be another CPU to go for and so on and so on.

I was going to buy a Z80 in 1980 but decided to hang on for a few months as there was a faster chip coming out. I've been waiting ever since as there is always a new CPU just-around-the-corner.

The most valuable and useful CPU is the one you have right now. I have a 4790K in a Z97X, another one in a Z87X, a quad core CPU running another VMWare server from eight years ago. Works very well and I have got massive use out of it.

Just my 2p worth,

Rob

 

[beatles4]

The main advantages of skylake seem to be what is new with the z170 boards. DDR4 Ram and Thunderbolt 3 seem to be the main reasons why I am going with skylake. The processors themselves seem to be negligible at best when compared to each other.

 

[rwillett]

The main advantages of skylake seem to be what is new with the z170 boards. DDR4 Ram and Thunderbolt 3 seem to be the main reasons why I am going with skylake. The processors themselves seem to be negligible at best when compared to each other.

Given the current state of Thunderbolt on existing boards for Mackintoshes, DDR4 is faster in theory but will it make much difference in real life, I'd say there is little incentive to go Skylake. YMMV.

Rob

 

[jpsulisz]

Was in the same boat as you no more then a week ago building my pc! In the end I went with the 4790k, why? Here are the pros and cons I listed for myself:

Pros:
+Found it for $100 cheaper then the Skylakes i7 counterpart
+Much more boards and compatibility right now (Boards were also cheaper)
+Had 16 gb DDR3 Ram on me, so I didn't have to pay for DDR4
+Still is quite quick despite it being a generation behind

Cons:
- Less upgradability for the future
- Less performance in some applications, although it is on paper difference; in the real world I doubt a couple secs will be noticeable
- Older, platform of LGA 1150 is dead

If you are going to spend the money on a Skylake system, why not X99? In my area the X99 systems are generally $50 cheaper then its Skylake counterpart, although I know this varies in many areas.

My choice: If you don't need the best of the best, the i7 4790k will do you fine, but keep in mind that this platform is dead! You'll be essential be running that i7 forever, until you get a whole new system. If you want more power, get a X99 i7-5820k and OC that baby!

 

[Wowfunhappy]

We already know from betas that 10.11.2 doesn't have full Skylake support. Even if they add it in 10.11.3, it won't be out before 2016 since 10.11.2 is even out yet.

I don't understand why people still think this.

I've been running OS X on my Skylake system for more than a month now, and everything has been 100% working this whole time. The one exception is USB3, which I didn't get working until today, but that's just because I was lazy and has has absolutely nothing to do with Skylake (getting USB3 to work in El Capitan is always a pain, regardless of platform).

The only issue with running Skylake under OS X is that the integrated graphics don't really work yet. However, if you're building a desktop system on anything other than an extremely strict budget, you ought to be using a dedicated graphics card anyway.

Skylake is here, Skylake is working, Skylake has been working for a more than a month, and I really don't understand the reluctance to use it.

 

[trs96]

To me it sounds absolutely ridiculous to say Haswell refresh hardware is either "dead" or even
outdated. There are many here still running Gigabyte P55m boards from 2010 with El Capitan
working perfectly. Always having the latest greatest is what the mobo manufacturers and Intel
want but to me it seems to be incredibly wasteful of money and resources. So no, it's not a bad
idea to buy a 4790K now, it's actually a great idea for most of the reasons already mentioned.

 

[VioletDragon]

My Main hack is Ivybridge still as good as the new stuff. No need to upgrade my 2nd build is Sandybridge still as good as Ivybridge my 3rd build is a core 2 quad still as good as the new stuff. nothing is dead tbh. A bit silly to say its dead. a lot of people are using Core 2 Duo CPUs they still run 10.11 perfectly fine.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

To me it sounds absolutely ridiculous to say Haswell refresh hardware is either "dead" or even
outdated.

Yes, saying that it's "dead" is a bit ridiculous. If you have a Haswell system, there's no need to replace it.

However, if you're buying a new system now, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to get the latest generation. It means the system will last that much longer.

 

[archvile]

I don't understand why people still think this.

I've been running OS X on my Skylake system for more than a month now, and everything has been 100% working this whole time. The one exception is USB3, which I didn't get working until today, but that's just because I was lazy and has has absolutely nothing to do with Skylake (getting USB3 to work in El Capitan is always a pain, regardless of platform).

The only issue with running Skylake under OS X is that the integrated graphics don't really work yet. However, if you're building a desktop system on anything other than an extremely strict budget, you ought to be using a dedicated graphics card anyway.

Skylake is here, Skylake is working, Skylake has been working for a more than a month, and I really don't understand the reluctance to use it.

I'm glad to hear you have a perfectly working Skylake setup. But how much time did it take to get to that point? On my current CPU + motherboard combination (3570k, z77) installing OS X is as easy as installing Windows. It literally takes like 15 minutes to get it up and running. Is this the case with Skylake? (I assume 4790k would act the same)

I spent not days, but weeks trying to install OS X on my old i5 750 with Asus p55 mobo. The process wasn't as easy back then, and I had a weird setup with 2 different GPUs etc. I really don't want to return to those days.