So Kaby is a waste of an upgrade?

[Iannis]

Hey all.
So I have the upgrade itch.
My current rig is only a few years old.
i7 4770k
Z87 mobo

I'm wanting to upgrade mostly so I can have the newest motherboard to
support my SSD addiction (looking at the 960 Pro m.2) also DDR3 to DDR4
would be fun.

But it feels like general consensus is Haswell to Kaby isn't worth the money
This is exclusively for gaming. Has anyone here made a the small leap from
Haswell to Kaby and noticed anything worth it in say.. WoW?

[Arbiter]

The most gains you're going to see is if you can manage to get the new CPU to overclock much further than you could your 4770K. Stock for stock though there isn't much of a difference in performance. Not near enough to justify buying a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM anyhow.

That said if you're ultimately looking for upgrades outside of just CPU performance then it's really just up to you if it's worth your money. But no, you won't notice much difference for a game like WoW between the two unless maybe your 4770K doesn't really overclock and your Kaby Lake counterpart overclocks well. Could always sell your current CPU, mobo, RAM to offset some of the costs.

[Iannis]

Ah yea I was afraid of that. Well my 4770k is at 4.5ghz right now and
has been stable at that OC for 2 years.

Guess it's wait for cannonlake or whatever. ho hum

[Lathais]

It's not really just Haswell -> Kaby Lake that is a waste. It's really anything Sandy Bridge on up. There are so little gains from one gen to the next that really, unless you absolutely need some of the features there is no point in upgrading.

As far as upgrading to new SSDs and DDR4 RAM, why? They are not going to make much of a difference at all in gaming performance. Sure, they look better on paper and in benchmarks, but that doesn't really translate to gaming performance. It may help in some enterprise applications, and make something that used to take 10 hours take 8, which translates to more money for a large corporation. For us gamers and other home applications and even general office use though? No point. There is a reason why XP is still being used in 56% of businesses across the globe. The reason for that is the advances made in both hardware and software are simply not needed by most people.

[kaelleria]

It's not really just Haswell -> Kaby Lake that is a waste. It's really anything Sandy Bridge on up. There are so little gains from one gen to the next that really, unless you absolutely need some of the features there is no point in upgrading.

As far as upgrading to new SSDs and DDR4 RAM, why? They are not going to make much of a difference at all in gaming performance. Sure, they look better on paper and in benchmarks, but that doesn't really translate to gaming performance. It may help in some enterprise applications, and make something that used to take 10 hours take 8, which translates to more money for a large corporation. For us gamers and other home applications and even general office use though? No point. There is a reason why XP is still being used in 56% of businesses across the globe. The reason for that is the advances made in both hardware and software are simply not needed by most people.

The reason XP is still being used around the globe is because people are cheap and don't care/know about the security risks of running an unsupported system.

Realistically look at what your machine has and if it's getting bogged down by anything and see where the bottleneck is. I personally went out for Kaby Lake because my 2500k has been having issues day to day (streaming, gaming, browsing, development work etc...). My big issue is the fact the 2500k is only a quad core.

I normally have more processes active than the average user, so the upgrade makes sense to me. On top of that my current board doesn't support things like USB Type C, a built in Wifi/BT adapter, more than 2 SATA 3 ports, M.2 drives, etc. The LGA 1151 socket should be compatible with the next few generations of intel chips and the z270 boards should be compatible with the Optane stuff whenever that materializes, so I feel like you're pretty future proof if you pull the trigger now.

[Lathais]

The reason XP is still being used around the globe is because people are cheap and don't care/know about the security risks of running an unsupported system.

No, it's because it still works. As far as home users though, sure there are security risks, but I was specifically referring to businesses around the globe. In a business, especially a larger one, where you are either not even on the internet, or behind a firewall, those security risks do not exist. You don't need any of the features that further versions of Windows utilize and you are running on old hardware that the new versions may not even recognize, and you have very good reasons to just keep using it. That is the reason why many businesses just don't upgrade.

[Kagthul]

No, it's because it still works. As far as home users though, sure there are security risks, but I was specifically referring to businesses around the globe. In a business, especially a larger one, where you are either not even on the internet, or behind a firewall, those security risks do not exist. You don't need any of the features that further versions of Windows utilize and you are running on old hardware that the new versions may not even recognize, and you have very good reasons to just keep using it. That is the reason why many businesses just don't upgrade.

My aunt (a CPA) ran her entire office on XP until about six months ago, when i finally convinced her that buying her girls (and one guy) new hardware would lead to increased productivity because of how old and slow her machines were.

She, personally, is still running XP - because she uses a Mac and runs all her accounting software via Windows in a VM.

If i hadn't taken an old Mac Mini (3rd gen Core i5) into her office and showed it to her running Windows, and doing tasks faster than her old-ass office hardware, she'd not have upgraded. To her, the difference literally had to be seen side-by-side to even be real to her.

And the only reason they're running Win 10 on the new hardware is because it was easier to just clone a VM and replace serial numbers. Win 10 has literally nothing she needs for her software to run.

People dont just upgrade because reasons. Particularly small businesses and large businesses. If the software and hardware is still doing what you need it to do, there is no purpose in spending money to upgrade for no reason. I know a guy still running Win 95 on a laptop because that's what his industrial laser runs on and what he's familiar with.

[Spray]

Okay, so I wrote my own thread already, but if we're speaking about upgrading Intels here.

If I sit on Ivy Bridge (i5-3570k specifically) - does it mean I shouldn't be really quick to upgrade it? Can it still hold up?

[kaelleria]

No, it's because it still works. As far as home users though, sure there are security risks, but I was specifically referring to businesses around the globe. In a business, especially a larger one, where you are either not even on the internet, or behind a firewall, those security risks do not exist. You don't need any of the features that further versions of Windows utilize and you are running on old hardware that the new versions may not even recognize, and you have very good reasons to just keep using it. That is the reason why many businesses just don't upgrade.

If you're running a business and have any sensitive data and are running a copy of XP and get breached you are totally fucked. Big businesses do not leave their stuff running on XP boxes or they risk losing their certifications. Here's a list off the top of my head of a few certifications you lose instantly by being on XP:
PCI
PADSS
HIPPA/HITECH
SOX
SAS 70
GLBA

Even if you don't care about compliance, you are stupid to still run an XP box except in very limited situations (legacy software on a virtualized XP machine).

[Lathais]

If you're running a business and have any sensitive data and are running a copy of XP and get breached you are totally fucked. Big businesses do not leave their stuff running on XP boxes or they risk losing their certifications. Here's a list off the top of my head of a few certifications you lose instantly by being on XP:
PCI
PADSS
HIPPA/HITECH
SOX
SAS 70
GLBA

Even if you don't care about compliance, you are stupid to still run an XP box except in very limited situations (legacy software on a virtualized XP machine).

If you are running a decent server and have a decent firewall, it doesn't matter. The outside can not see or access the XP machines, because of the server and the firewall. If you do it right, you can run XP machines and still meet many of those certification. I know, because I still run a couple old XP machines here at work and I still meet at least one of those on the list. We even hired a third-party company to ensure our compliance and we meet it, with XP machines running on our network. So what you have said is false.

Please keep in mind, I am not talking about every single machine in the company. Sure, some people need different stuff. Your people sitting in a call center taking orders and just inputting that in to your software though? Doesn't really matter what they use, XP works fine for this type of work. Does it boot and run the software? The way some software works, that data is all handled by the server anyway. The data is encrypted on the server, the server is secure and behind a firewall, so what goes on on those XP machines doesn't even matter.

[kaelleria]

If you are running a decent server and have a decent firewall, it doesn't matter. The outside can not see or access the XP machines, because of the server and the firewall. If you do it right, you can run XP machines and still meet many of those certification. I know, because I still run a couple old XP machines here at work and I still meet at least one of those on the list. We even hired a third-party company to ensure our compliance and we meet it, with XP machines running on our network. So what you have said is false.

When was your audit? Depending on your auditor you'll have more trouble than others. Yeah you can segment your network any number of ways, but some auditors will instantly fail you on PCI compliance if you're running any XP boxes. Realistically you cover your ass more by not running XP machines.

[Lathais]

When was your audit? Depending on your auditor you'll have more trouble than others. Yeah you can segment your network any number of ways, but some auditors will instantly fail you on PCI compliance if you're running any XP boxes. Realistically you cover your ass more by not running XP machines.

Except that, unless they are here in my office working on the XP machine, they have no way of knowing I even am running any XP machines. They can not see my internal network, at all. That's the whole point. If the rest of your environment is secured properly, the individual machines are not even seen so there is no risk. Since there is no risk, and those XP machines are still chugging along and doing exactly what they need to, many companies just leave them there. 56% of businesses around the world are still running XP machines and the vast majority of them are in no security risk either.

In essence, it kinda is what you originally said, being cheap. But then again, a business is about making profits and upgrading things that don't really need upgrading hurts profits. If it's not hurting anything, why bother to upgrade?

[kaelleria]

Except that, unless they are here in my office working on the XP machine, they have no way of knowing I even am running any XP machines. They can not see my internal network, at all. That's the whole point. If the rest of your environment is secured properly, the individual machines are not even seen so there is no risk. Since there is no risk, and those XP machines are still chugging along and doing exactly what they need to, many companies just leave them there. 56% of businesses around the world are still running XP machines and the vast majority of them are in no security risk either.

In essence, it kinda is what you originally said, being cheap. But then again, a business is about making profits and upgrading things that don't really need upgrading hurts profits. If it's not hurting anything, why bother to upgrade?

Did your auditors not do an internal pen test? They absolutely did/do with ours... Like I said, different auditors different security standards.

[Erous]

They also run older operating systems because they've built applications and support of those applications for those operating systems and the cost/risk to purchase 3rd party or reprogram is too high.

[Sorshen]

Okay, so I wrote my own thread already, but if we're speaking about upgrading Intels here.

If I sit on Ivy Bridge (i5-3570k specifically) - does it mean I shouldn't be really quick to upgrade it? Can it still hold up?

There's no point in upgrading for gaming. Maybe if you really wand M.2/USB 3.1/Type-C, etc.

[kaelleria]

On topic, I'm also wondering about Kaby. I have an older build circa 2009 with a newer PSU/Graphics card but the quad core I have and the lack of USB 3.0 onboard are bottlenecking me. I found the i5 7600k to be appealing and the supporting mobos out are tasty looking as well with all the supporting features.

If you're running on the chip I think you're running on, you'd definitely see a pretty hefty boost with a 7600k. For perspective an i5-760 performance gets more than doubled by the 7600k.

[chronia]

No, it's because it still works. As far as home users though, sure there are security risks, but I was specifically referring to businesses around the globe. In a business, especially a larger one, where you are either not even on the internet, or behind a firewall, those security risks do not exist. You don't need any of the features that further versions of Windows utilize and you are running on old hardware that the new versions may not even recognize, and you have very good reasons to just keep using it. That is the reason why many businesses just don't upgrade.

If you think those risks do not exist, then (cyber) criminals and industrial thieves would be very happy to see you as a CIO at some big company. Some of the risks are less when machines are not connected to the internet or very well firewalled but they are still there a simple USB stick can wreck havoc on networks like that and there are industrial thieves and cyber criminals developing and distributing USB sticks just for those purposes, Also the majority of business are not very well firewalled or protected outside of that (else stuff like Cryptolockers wouldn't be that popular), heck a lot of companies where i come as IT consultant don't even run proper backups (they think they do, but they never check them).

Also here in Holland most security certifications cannot even be met any more when running XP machines (with the exception for XP Embedded for industrial machines, or if you are one of the companies still paying MS for extended security support on XP). Now this might be different in other countries ofcourse.

But overall running XP can be a big risk, and firewalling can and will not provide enough safety in all situations. You can mitigate some of it, but overall you are alot safer and future proof if you run current supported OSses. Now sure money can (and will) be a problem in some cases, but ignorance is also a huge factor.]

btw, you got any source for the 56% (with spread by country if possible), as atleast here in Holland Windows XP i rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Out of the +- 1200 business my company runs the IT for only +- 5% still runs any number of XP machines or lower (mostly industrial machines where the manufacturer cannot or will not provide a upgrade path).

I do know that countries like China inflate the global XP usage by alot though.

[Gaidax]

I've seen first hand that a lot of businesses still use Windows XP, but it's not usually for the "cheap asses" or purists, it's simply because of proprietary software that performs a specific function that hasn't been updated since XP still had a lifecycles.

It's more than running it in compatibility mode, it's software that requires older dependencies or specific hardware that hasn't been updated to newer firmwares.

I've seen it in IT companies, I've seen it in hospitals, I've seen it in logistics firms. Hell, even financial companies run it.

This. I am working with various Chinese ODM and factories and they run XP simply because a good chunk of their tools is not compatible or has issues with anything higher than that.

Heck I have Windows XP VM exactly for that reason, because sometimes I need to use these tools and I ain't gonna be rocking XP on my machine for that.

These 56% are simply because of that - outdated software that nobody bothers to update and breaks on any sort of modern OS.

[Lathais]

If you think those risks do not exist, then (cyber) criminals and industrial thieves would be very happy to see you as a CIO at some big company. Some of the risks are less when machines are not connected to the internet or very well firewalled but they are still there a simple USB stick can wreck havoc on networks like that and there are industrial thieves and cyber criminals developing and distributing USB sticks just for those purposes, Also the majority of business are not very well firewalled or protected outside of that (else stuff like Cryptolockers wouldn't be that popular), heck a lot of companies where i come as IT consultant don't even run proper backups (they think they do, but they never check them).

Also here in Holland most security certifications cannot even be met any more when running XP machines (with the exception for XP Embedded for industrial machines, or if you are one of the companies still paying MS for extended security support on XP). Now this might be different in other countries ofcourse.

But overall running XP can be a big risk, and firewalling can and will not provide enough safety in all situations. You can mitigate some of it, but overall you are alot safer and future proof if you run current supported OSses. Now sure money can (and will) be a problem in some cases, but ignorance is also a huge factor.]

btw, you got any source for the 56% (with spread by country if possible), as atleast here in Holland Windows XP i rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Out of the +- 1200 business my company runs the IT for only +- 5% still runs any number of XP machines or lower (mostly industrial machines where the manufacturer cannot or will not provide a upgrade path).

I do know that countries like China inflate the global XP usage by alot though.

Luckily, I work at a small company. There are less than 10 of us and we all know not to plug USB sticks in to our PCs here. Also, we are very well firewalled and have paid companies to test our security, they can't get in to my network. Also, yes we do back-up, I check them daily.

Again, unless someone comes in to our office, how would they even know we are running XP? We are not open to the public. Our customers call to place orders and the warehouse ships them. There are less than 10 of us here and no one else comes here, it's a semi-secure location and we just do not ever really have guests other than occasionally vendors stopping by.

It's also not money, it's there is no point in me upgrading certain PCs around here. The way our software works, it runs on the server, the server is secure. Since all the work is being done on the server, it does not get done any faster on a current OS. Actually, the couple PCs we have that are running W8 or 10 run the software we use SLOWER than the old XP machines. Also, due to the W10 machine, we had to upgrade our database, including 10 new licenses, which was no small expense. If we did not need to upgrade that one machine for a different piece of software that did require 10 to upgrade as it would not install on XP, we'd still be 100% XP, because for our purposes, it's actually faster.

I don't have a source, no. It was a factoid in an e-mail and I lost the e-mail. Remember though, to be included in that 56%, a company just needs one machine still running XP to be counted in that, even if everything else in the company runs W10. You can always look at this though:
https://netmarketshare.com/

XP has nearly always been more popular the 8.1. The line for XP users is also pretty flat, because many of the people using it can not or will not change.

[Kagthul]

I used to manage a pair of 7-11s for a private owner.

Everything ran on Win 95 when i started.

It ran on 95 for years longer than it should have (and i mean everything - the register, the ordering handheld, the main computer in the office, all of it).

Right around the time Windows 7 came out, we got upgraded to XP.

I left that job when my son was born almost a decade ago (to take care of him at home) but i am still friends with the owner.

They STILL run XP. Right now.

7-11. Tens of thousands of stores. Major international corporation.

Because the entire ordering system, PoS software, inventory system, etc, is all running on XP and tightly integrated.

It would have to be re-written (a relatively major expense) and relatively bug-free before they could deploy it to stores. Last i talked to her, she was told that the Win 10 version was underway and would be deployed sometime in very late 2017 at the earliest, probably best case mid 2018.

Speedway (major fuel chain) still runs on Windows 7. And probably will for another ~3-5 years.

My wife does IT for a hospital system, notably working with EMR (Electronic Medical Records) software. All of their machines have to run Win 7 and will for at least 3 more years, because EPIC and eClinical Works (the two EMR's they work with) require 7 to run (because they require IE hooks that are ancient). EPIC is working dilligently on upgrading the software, but it is such a huge, complex piece of software that it takes literally YEARS to update it... especially beause they have to make sure that every customer can import their data into the new version (as it is highly customizable for the client to include specific data that that type of medical practitioner might need) without data loss.