Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Intel does not have a product that suits your needs for the price you're willing to pay. AMD might. But you're summarily disregarding any option they may bring to your table simply because an add-in manufacturer couldn't or wouldn't support a VIA platform years ago.
You want the power of a dual 2600k system at the cost of 2 2600k systems (or slightly higher). That simply will never happen, and for any of Intel's offerings, the cost of similar power systems are significantly higher (total cost of maybe $4000). We are giving you AMD as an alternative that could potentially match your power needs, a 4 CPU 6-8 core per CPU might match the power at maybe $2000-3000. Your logic simply does not make any sense.
Or, you simply should have just waited for Ivy Bridge. Additional SATA is cheap and simple to implement and expand (look at add-in cards). Additional graphics cards support are relatively cheap to add (simply a matter of doing the PCI-E traces, and maybe adding a NF200 for additional PCI-E lanes, at a cost of maybe $35-50 over a standard board). Now, have you seen an add-in card for a CPU? Or some sort of connecting bridge system where the CPU's are actually talking directly with each other? It simply is much cheaper to introduce a new chip with additional cores/higher performance. In the old days, adding more CPU's was the only way of getting more performance, but now it is simply a matter of buying a higher level CPU. And the next higher CPU is usually about half a year away. Those who actually require the power of multiple top-level chips are usually corporations who have absolutely no qualms about spending lots of money to get that kind of power. Intel simply won't care what a low consumer like you wants, because there simply is no business sense for them to care. You still ended up buying a 2600k anyways, and that's all they care about.
For cpu intensive programs like video editing Amd is a big no due to their lack of SSE instructions in their cpus.
I understand what you are saying, and I understand that Intel won't do it, but I'm saying they should. I really don't see a dual 2600K being that much of a threat to the enterprise parts. IT server admins will always have the opportunity to use inferior grade components in servers and when they do, they end up regretting it. The dual 2600K is something enthusiasts could really run with if it were an option and it would make many of us happy.
But anyway, you are suggesting that I go with a quad CPU arrangement from AMD? Is that because a dual AMD arrangement would only match Intel's single cpu offerings, with the 4 CPU offering surpassing it? That seems kinda crazy, but which CPU are you thinking about?
Are you thinking the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T? I see that chip is low priced, but how much is the motherboard that can handle 4 of those?
I understand what you are saying, and I understand that Intel won't do it, but I'm saying they should. I really don't see a dual 2600K being that much of a threat to the enterprise parts. IT server admins will always have the opportunity to use inferior grade components in servers and when they do, they end up regretting it. The dual 2600K is something enthusiasts could really run with if it were an option and it would make many of us happy.
But anyway, you are suggesting that I go with a quad CPU arrangement from AMD? Is that because a dual AMD arrangement would only match Intel's single cpu offerings, with the 4 CPU offering surpassing it? That seems kinda crazy, but which CPU are you thinking about?
Are you thinking the AMD Phenom II X6 1100T? I see that chip is low priced, but how much is the motherboard that can handle 4 of those?
I was not talking about any system in particular. I was referring to one of those 6 or 8 core opteron chips, and a server board that can support 4 of them. The reason why I gave that hypothetical situation was because you seemed to absolutely reject any idea of an AMD system without giving any consideration towards them. The main advantage with the Opterons is their high core count, they have relatively slow clock speeds.
Even AMD does not support multi-CPU configurations in their desktops. That is reserved exclusively for their server lineup. For AMD though, their server sockets do not share the same socket as desktop sockets, as opposed to Intel, which share the same. And yes, AMD does charge a price premium for server CPU's as opposed to desktop.
I'm not saying that I know an AMD solution will be cheaper than a similar Intel solution. I'm just pointing out the possibility exists, due to the fact that you reject AMD at any cost. In general, AMD does have better price/performance.
AMD has always has SSE, all current generation processors have it. The only difference as I remember is that Intel has fully fledged SSE4, while AMD has SSE4a.
No, we're talking about the AMD Opteron 8 or 12-core server processors that start out at nearly 1/4th the price of an i7-990, and while they may not match the Intel chips core for core, they can surpass them with shear brute force. 32-48 AMD cores vs 8 cores of theoretical dual-2600k
There is no way of getting the performance you want without entering the server realm. That is the reality, accept it. We're just saying an AMD server system will probably cost less than a similar Intel server system. Or just wait for new tech. Bulldozer is in June, Ivy Bridge is in August.
Or, better yet, STOP TRYING TO PLAY THAT GAME ON 6 MONITORS. That will certainly solve all of your CPU bottleneck problems (as I see it, that's your only problem).
but but what about 2 5970 eyefinity 12's in CF with a total of 24 screens?I'm into AMD for cost/performance, not for extravagant solutions that only they support. Look closely at my rig, I use dual GTX 470's. Basically, I get whatever provides me with best price/performance at the time I am buying parts. And I only use one monitor. No, I do not believe 6 monitors is the way of the future. 3 monitors, maybe, but 6 is just excessive.
I'm into AMD for cost/performance, not for extravagant solutions that only they support. Look closely at my rig, I use dual GTX 470's. Basically, I get whatever provides me with best price/performance at the time I am buying parts. And I only use one monitor. No, I do not believe 6 monitors is the way of the future. 3 monitors, maybe, but 6 is just excessive.
i wish i could upgrade to 3 myself, but alas monitors are not cheap
I'm into AMD for cost/performance, not for extravagant solutions that only they support. Look closely at my rig, I use dual GTX 470's. Basically, I get whatever provides me with best price/performance at the time I am buying parts. And I only use one monitor. No, I do not believe 6 monitors is the way of the future. 3 monitors, maybe, but 6 is just excessive.
We have been asking AMD what's been up with their CPU offerings for the past year. Everyone hopes that AMD can get into the high-end market with Bulldozer, but that seems to be fairly unlikely.
Unfortunately, I'm not dirt rich like you, and I don't have room in my dorm for a multi-monitor system. Yes, I suppose I can sell a 470 and get two additional monitors, but then nVidia cannot do 3 displays without SLI.
Additionally, I find that I do not need more than one monitor. And since when has multi-monitor systems been the standard? Most users use only one monitor, maybe 2 at the most. Do not lump yourself in with the average user, because you are not the average user. People like you make up probably 2% or less of the market. Maybe 5% for triple monitor.
Also, I am running a 1680x1050 monitor. By AOC. Not exactly sure why I ended up with two 470's. Or a 1090T for that matter. It just happened.
intel and amd don't offer dual cpu configurations except for server parts. instead of second life just play real life. much better graphics
haha jk but for real, there will never be enough interest for either to offer dual socket consumer boards
I'm not dirt rich by any means but I'm also not an average user, don't claim to be, I'm just seriously into tech and that means multi-displays are almost a neccesity. Just visit the HForum multi-display rig area to see how widespread multi-displays are.
If I were dirt rich, I surely would not have a problem purchasing a dual Xeon system rig and would have no use for a dual 2600K system as I would just purchase the overpriced Xeon's and be done with it.
Instead I have chosen the modest 2600K because it is a reasonably priced chip compared to the un-reasonable 980x\990x and Xeon chips. Multi-displays have become a standard however, not just for enthusiasts, alot of HP\Dell models encourage multi-display options as well. Many people have started to purchase them, many corporations as well.
Also, purchasing a lower cost chip instead of the Xeon(s) saves $ for a multi-display \ high-end GPU rig. As mentioned earlier, 1 Xeon costs more than 6 displays. It's a tradeoff, but then again, those Xeon's are just a rip for the enthusiast. No bang for the buck whatsoever.
So far, you have suggested that I am either a cheap enthusiast, a racist, or dirt rich, all of which are completely incorrect. So, I am going to suggest that you are a turkey. I hope you don't mind.
Ummm... there's a reason why it's called the multi-display subforum. Because those who have multi-display, or planning to go with multi-display, are the only ones that go in there. Using that subforum just gives you massively skewed results.
Based on my experience? Most of the people I meet use only one screen. Or a laptop. My entire family, and 99% of my relatives use only one screen. At my university, every computer system I run into (besides classroom ones) use a single screen, or it's a laptop.
Additionally, do not lump in [H] users with average users.
The only reason why I said those things is because you keep trying to justify things for yourself that doesn't really make any sense, or that we have already explained to you why it won't happen. I run a watercooled computer. Think that is cheap? My interests in computers lie in different areas than your interest in computers, and as such, my money correspondingly goes to different areas of computing. I may be an enthusiast on the cheap end, but I am much more limited by money than you are, and I have different priorities for my money than you. If I can spend the money on an I7 2600k system with dual 6970's and 6 screens, I would. Hell, why stop at 6 screens, why not go with 6 30" 2560x1600 screens? Or maybe 9 screens. Or 12. But I can't. My money and my situation do not allow for it.
Most of the people I meet use only one screen. Or a laptop. My entire family, and 99% of my relatives use only one screen. At my university, every computer system I run into (besides classroom ones) use a single screen, or it's a laptop.
Dual displays are much more frequent than triple displays, that is for sure.
They can't release it because it is not possible. End of story.
I just e-mailed Intel and asked them if they would consider releasing a dual 2600K motherboard. Have to wait and see if they respond or not.
I think Lamborghinis are overpriced. I want to be able to buy a
Lamborghini for a little bit more than I paid for my Subaru WRX. I think
there is a market for cars like that and many people I know would buy such
a car if it were available. Why won't Subaru build me a Lamborghini using
a par if stock 2.5L flat four boxer engines in a stock WRX chassis for a
little bit more money?
Why did I go through the pain of reading some of this thread...
4 socket server board and 6 display Eyefinity to play.... Second Life? WTF?
They didn't have QPI but they were designed to share a front side bus and maintain cache coherency.QPI... QPI is not required to have multiple CPUs in a board.... sure it makes development easier as the option of DP and QP boards was designed into the CPU, but it is not required. Those Athalons and PIIIs mentioned on about page 4 didn't have QPI.