This incredible thread that Jim has put together focuses on wear resistance. So we have a natural tendency to think that wear resistance is the most important aspect of a knife steel. We forget that as we increase wear resistance, we face the potential of weakening the steel it other important ways.
This is exactly what I tried to say. But there are two notable exceptions:
1)Elmax 1150°C/540°C 3x2h oil quenched where it reaches 43J and 63HRC
2)S90V 1180°C/540°C 3x2h oil quenched: Elliot Williamson states in his own site that the Matrix is much more stable and way less prone to chipping
Edit:
Summing up.
There is a balance for every steel, given the tasks it is called to fullfill, among mere hardness and toughness. And PM generation has a pivotal keyrole into this balance.
There are steels with roughly same PM technology, but with pretty different hardness responses given same HT temperature. I.e.: CTS-204P and M390.
This is to be known to properly judge their performances.
There is common consensus about, for instance, sharpening M390 not at a mirror finishing level. This is true with every production blade I tested with such a steel. This is NOT true with all of the knives made for me by Elliot Williamson and with the Zeus folder by Neels Roos. This is brought about by finer and spot on steel Matrix grain and carbide size and distribution, given the HT done in the optimal range (1180°C/540°C) with secondary hardening causing secondary carbides precipitation. Obviously enough with a slight trade off in stain resistance (counteracted by a very polished blade and cutting edge).
There are steels that are not tailored for a given task.
There are some medium-medium heavy use knives with S35VN, that are at 55-57HRC, just to mention an example. Should this be either achieved with low temp hardening or with high hardening/secondary range tempering, there will be a noticeable decay in stain resistance. In the first case wire edge would be probably an issue. In the second case probably not.
But, then, if there is a SS capable of achieving >40J at 62HRC (just as CPM-M4, which is well regarded for such tasks), why not going with this one instead?
I myself would never push M390 Beyond 62 or S35VN Beyond 60, for such a knife. Worst case it would be 3 HRC more than 57HRC.
I would never make a chopper in a SS, but I would use CPM-3V @60 maybe CPM-M4 at 62 (both passivated more than coated). There are more production blades properly HTd in 3V than ones in CPM-M4, though.
So M4 would be an option only in a custom.
I would definitely NOT make use of N690, which definitely lacks the required toughness. Despite of this some makers make use of it, eventually underhardening when a proven record of failures shows up. E.R. KH
For a serious skinner/fillet knife I would use S110V, 20CP, S90V: kinda fire and forget. Keeping 1-2 HRC lower than max, but always high austenitizing, to stain resistance effects (blood etc).
Let's add one more variable: SS with Moly =>than 0.8% but V less than enough to form carbides, are prone to form M23C6 Cr carbides if austeniting lower than roughly 1050°C, instead we'd prefer having harder M7C3 Cr carbides (or also M6C Moly ones on AISI 618 class). So we should raise (depending on air furnace or vacuum furnace to 1066°C or up to 1110°C). N690, AISI 618, CTS-XHP. More than this cryo is to be considered mandatory to minimize retained austenite, which averegely gifts you 2 more HRC with no loss in toughness.
I wonder how many production knives are done this way. Note: we would not push things to the limits, this way.
Above i mentioned CCT diagrams:
http://www.matter.org.uk/steelmatter/metallurgy/7_1_2.html
This is a very simple example. Feel free to chose a different cooling rate (quenching media) and see the results yourself.
Notably: which cooling rate allows for complete transformation of Austenite into Martensite.
You might need to add http://www.matter.org.uk to the list of sites' exceptions under Java control panel, Security Tab
just can't have that if lack of buyers or too many returns/defects. 
