Is a Haswell a suitable substitute for Skylake?

[Sweepr]

We should have a fourth option now. Best substitute for Skylake-K is the combination of Skylake + cheap MB that allows BCLK overclocking.

 

[sm625]

In terms of value there is no question that a $250 haswell i7 is a better value than a skylake i7 that costs roughly 50% more for 8% more performance. If you absolutely need that 8% then you're locked into the purchase, but for most buyers the obvious choice is, well, obvious.

 

[Headfoot]

There is no reason to go 4-core z97 Haswell for overclockers as long as overclockable locked Skylake i5-6400 exists for cheaper than a 4690k does. If you want/need HT+threads you are probably less price sensitive, and stepping up to a 5820k is the best route (2 more real cores and 4 more total threads for nearly the same price as i7 6700k). HT'd "i7" 4 cores are too much more money compared to the no HT i5 4 core when for just a bit more you can go all the way to the real high end desktop of 5820k. Especially if you live near Microcenter. i7 6700k is pretty much a turd in price/perf.

4790k still has a place as the highest clocked out of the box processor available for those who won't overclock.

Bottom line:
Lowest Tier build = cheapest overclockable locked Skylake i3 (i3-6100)
Midrange Build = cheapest overclockable locked Skylake i5 (i5-6400, $185)
High End build that needs threads = 5820k
High end build that doesn't need threads = i5 6400 or i5 6600k if you like the convenience of unlocked multipliers, but then you lose the competitive price/perf of the locked i5-6400.
Non-overclocker high end build that doesn't need threads = 4790k just to get the high out of the box clock speed.

Clock speed is still king when the architectures don't vary much in IPC and there is only one reasonably priced option with more than 4 cores, and most indications are that Skylake OCs as good or better than Devil's Canyon.

Once you start getting into the 6700k price range, X99 is just an all around better bet. Similarly priced 6 core today with upgrade potential on the socket tommorrow. If you're above the price range for i5-6400 but below X99 id suggest either re-allocating budget from CPU to elsewhere and staying at i5-6400 or increasing and going X99. I dont think buying the top chip on a dead platform at the beginning of 2016 is a great plan even if it is discounted. (unless you're not an overclocker, as above)

 

[fourdegrees11]

So are we now going to claim that low base clocked/locked skylake i5's are all going to oc over 1 ghz to make them equal/better then 4690ks?

 

[Madpacket]

So are we now going to claim that low base clocked/locked skylake i5's are all going to oc over 1 ghz to make them equal/better then 4690ks?

Yeah this seems a bit silly / premature advice given tradeoffs involved.

 

[PPB]

Its a tough decision for the people at the US and being near a Microcenter. At that store you can have a 4790K+B85 combo for just about 300 bucks, and you are able to OC via multiplier. You can OC the RAM too with some models (B85 Vanguard being one of them)

On the other hand, you can land a i5 6400 and a B150/H170 for a similar price if not 10/20 bucks less. You gain: RAM OC via BCLK, you can OC the core/uncore too via BCLK. You lose your IGP and other settings as of yet.

I would go the 4790K honestly.

 

[myocardia]

There is no reason to go 4-core z97 Haswell for overclockers as long as overclockable locked Skylake i5-6400 exists for cheaper than a 4690k does. If you want/need HT+threads you are probably less price sensitive, and stepping up to a 5820k is the best route (2 more real cores and 4 more total threads for nearly the same price as i7 6700k). HT'd "i7" 4 cores are too much more money compared to the no HT i5 4 core when for just a bit more you can go all the way to the real high end desktop of 5820k. Especially if you live near Microcenter. i7 6700k is pretty much a turd in price/perf.

4790k still has a place as the highest clocked out of the box processor available for those who won't overclock.

Bottom line:
Lowest Tier build = cheapest overclockable locked Skylake i3 (i3-6100)
Midrange Build = cheapest overclockable locked Skylake i5 (i5-6400, $185)
High End build that needs threads = 5820k
High end build that doesn't need threads = i5 6400 or i5 6600k if you like the convenience of unlocked multipliers, but then you lose the competitive price/perf of the locked i5-6400.
Non-overclocker high end build that doesn't need threads = 4790k just to get the high out of the box clock speed.

Clock speed is still king when the architectures don't vary much in IPC and there is only one reasonably priced option with more than 4 cores, and most indications are that Skylake OCs as good or better than Devil's Canyon.

Once you start getting into the 6700k price range, X99 is just an all around better bet. Similarly priced 6 core today with upgrade potential on the socket tommorrow. If you're above the price range for i5-6400 but below X99 id suggest either re-allocating budget from CPU to elsewhere and staying at i5-6400 or increasing and going X99. I dont think buying the top chip on a dead platform at the beginning of 2016 is a great plan even if it is discounted. (unless you're not an overclocker, as above)

I would agree with every single thing you said here, if you hadn't forgotten to mention all of the people with complete Haswell/Devils Canyon systems, who don't own a 4790k. That's an awfully sweet upgrade for $250-300, if you live anywhere in the US.

edit: Those people who do not already own a 4770k, of course.^^^^^

 

[Joepublic2]

I tried both, Haswell and Skylake. Even got one next to the other here. And I would definitely pick Skylake any time without question, specially after playing Fallout 4. However if price is not equal, then there is that factor. I would also pick Skylake due to its platform as well. DMI 3.0, broad M.2 support etc.

Fallout 4 is really an outlier though in that it scales really well with additional memory bandwidth. Most games don't. If you're running other apps that scale well with memory bandwidth like video encoding there could be a large difference in performance, but most of the things that do are easily parallelizable problems so you'd still be better off with a 6-core haswell chip vs. a 4 core skylake for around the same $$$ as noted in this thread.

 

[Lepton87]

Fallout 4 is really an outlier though in that it scales really well with additional memory bandwidth. Most games don't. If you're running other apps that scale well with memory bandwidth like video encoding there could be a large difference in performance, but most of the things that do are easily parallelizable problems so you'd still be better off with a 6-core haswell chip vs. a 4 core skylake for around the same $$$ as noted in this thread.

HW-E does just fine in that game with the UNCORE at 4.2GHZ and 2800MHz C15 memory. HUGE difference from the default. Remember at stock the UNCORE is clocked at 3GHz which is fine in most apps but not in FO4. Most people don't bother to OC the UNCORE because the gains are very small almost anywhere but FO4 is an outlier. I also heard it is not as easy to get it to match the core clock without the OC socket which I have. I haven't yet bothered to benchmark it with the UNCORE at 3GHz but I guess there could be an almost linear difference.

ps. This is one game where I'd like to see how DDR4 3400MHz C15/16 fares. And which CPU gains more from faster memory HW-E at 4.2+ with 1/1UNCORE or SKYLAKE. Would also be nice to see that broadwell with 128MB L4. I wish BW-E would pack some L4 memory so it could be competitive with skylake in games. 256MB L4 would be sweet and that would make it up to me for the outdated core compared to skylake. Still, BW-E should still fare rather well in games compared to the mainstream skylake. lots of L3 should make up for some of the lost IPC. I'll probably pick the 8 core version, 1000$ for 10C will be too much,