Dual i7-2600K Motherboard

Okay, so the cheap enthusiast remark may have been a bit over the top, but it's not too far from the truth. You are simply not willing to pay that extra bit to get a dual-CPU system.

I think that is where the disconnect is. I would pay that extra bit to get a dual CPU system if it were reasonably priced.

I just think that the Xeon's are overpriced as well for the QPI feature.

It would be nice if the 2600K had that feature, then I would just have to pay the extra amount for the 2nd CPU, and a little extra for the more expensive board. I mean, I'm looking at these Xeons, but any that come close to what the 2600K can do are very very expensive. It doesn't seem like a smal bit at all, but instead, a very large bit (of cash) to upgrade to comparable Xeon performance levels. Take for instance, the Xeon X5680. It's retail at about $1700. That's just for one. Very spendy.
 
Well that's just the thing, there probably will NOT be Xeons for LGA1155 because it's the consumer oriented socket, not the enthusiast/workstation or high end server socket.

true enough

I was thinking LGA2011, for which I do believe there will be an SR3...its like a trail of skulls
 
I think that is where the disconnect is. I would pay that extra bit to get a dual CPU system if it were reasonably priced.

I just think that the Xeon's are overpriced as well for the QPI feature.

It would be nice if the 2600K had that feature, then I would just have to pay the extra amount for the 2nd CPU, and a little extra for the more expensive board. I mean, I'm looking at these Xeons, but any that come close to what the 2600K can do are very very expensive. It doesn't seem like a smal bit at all, but instead, a very large bit (of cash) to upgrade to comparable Xeon performance levels. Take for instance, the Xeon X5680. It's retail at about $1700. That's just for one. Very spendy.

You're also missing a little bit there. The Xeons are lower-powered and run cooler than their consumer-grade counterparts. If you put them in an overclocking board (like the SR2), then they will overclock better than consumer CPU's. These are cherry-picked processors. Even the difference between comparable i7 and Xeon 1366 processors is extreme.

Case in point: Xeon 5550 is at $1000. Spec-wise, it is only comparable to the i7 920, 4-core 2.66 ghz hyperthreading triple-memory. The i7 940 (2.93 ghz) is at $270. The Xeon 5675 is only comparable to the i7 970. The 970 is at $600, the 5675 is at $1500. So to think getting a dual SB system without a huge price premium is being a little... let's just say get your head out of the clouds.
 
I remember those. I think that is what I was thinking of, and that was a consumer CPU as you mentioned. So, how come they no longer make dual cpu motherboards for consumer CPU's, but they did back then?

Once multi-core cpu's became available, multi-cpu systems for consumers were no longer necessary. IOW the advent of multi-core cpu's killed the demand for consumer multi-cpu systems.

For a consumer I can't imagine the scenario for multi-cpu systems, 6 core cpu's are available from both AMD and Intel. The scenario you describe, regardless of the fact you are not rendering professionally, requires professional grade hardware.

Intel and AMD know the numbers and I imagine it simply isn't cost effective too produce consumer multi-cpu systems. Keep in mind that multi-cpu solutions require additional subsystem support to synchronize everything and that means there is more surface area for failures to occur. Part of the reason server/workstation cpu's, memory and mobo's cost so much more is for the additional sync support and fault tolerance.
 
Last edited:
If you guys need more horsepower on the cheap, why not just set up a poor man's beowulf cluster? If you need more horsepower for rendering, set up a rendering farm. I don't see how more cores is going to help with every day tasks except maybe leasing out virtual machines where the more cores, the better.
 
You want Formula 1 technology in your Sport Compact car, and you don't want to pay for the engineering it took to put it there. If you want the premium, you pay for the premium. The "enthusiast" market that you speak of... is a drop in the bucket, to the server market that they really cater to.
 
If you guys need more horsepower on the cheap, why not just set up a poor man's beowulf cluster? If you need more horsepower for rendering, set up a rendering farm. I don't see how more cores is going to help with every day tasks except maybe leasing out virtual machines where the more cores, the better.

Second Life eats all the cores you can throw at it. That's the main reason I wouldn't just set up a renderfarm.
 
Well that's just the thing, there probably will NOT be Xeons for LGA1155 because it's the consumer oriented socket, not the enthusiast/workstation or high end server socket.

There already ARE LGA1155 Xeons like the E3-1220. There still is need for low-power servers after all. There will never be any dual-socket LGA1155 just like there could not be dual-socket LGA1156 boards, because those processors lack the external QPI interface for inter-processor communication. The socket does not provide any contacts for QPI interfaces.

It is much more likely for 6 or 8-core processors to become the standard (maybe even for LGA1155) than for Intel to release a dual-processor capable socket for the low-priced consumer market again. If they ever release a LGA2011 processor for the top-end consumer market, they will make sure to remove the multi-socket capability, just like they did with all non-Xeon LGA1366 parts. The real enthusiasts can buy into the server market after all.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that the Sandy Bridge Xeon chips aren't available yet. They'll probably be similarly priced to the current Xeons, but right now you're comparing granny smith apples to red delicious ones.

Also, I think I speak for the majority of [H] that if dual CPU systems were only slightly more expensive than single CPU systems, we'd all probably have them. But they're not slightly more expensive so we don't. If First Class on a jet was only slightly more expensive don't you think more people would fly that way than in Coach? But it's not, so we don't. For your usage scenario, I'd just build two seperate systems (one for your second life, one for your rendering) or if you really want more cores, get an 8 or 12-core Opteron. Or buy an 8-core Intel chip when it's available (for the price of 3 2600ks) later this year.
 
Also, I think I speak for the majority of [H] that if dual CPU systems were only slightly more expensive than single CPU systems, we'd all probably have them. But they're not slightly more expensive so we don't.

Yep....and that is the problem.

Perhaps some day the prices will come down for newer dual CPU systems. Currently, they are cost prohibitive, and that is my whole point.

It's as if the industry dictates and says:

"Oh, you want to combine these 2 GPU's on one system? Go right ahead."
"Oh, you want to combine these 2 SSD's on one system? Go right ahead."
"Oh, you want to combine these 2 CPU's on one system? Sorry. Take a hike!"
...or pay exagerated prices through the nose.

I just don't get the logic. Perhaps we are still paying for R&D costs for QPI? I dunno. I guess we must.

SSDs, GPUs, CPUs, memory all come down in price but dual CPU systems are still crazy expensive for what you get. (until the cpu is practically obsolete, at that time, you can find them for cheap, but who cares at that point).

Hopefully some day that will change and reasonable prices for newer dual CPU capable systems will emerge. Somebody should try and hack the 2600K to make it work with another in a single system. Create a virtual QPI or something. I guess there isn't a big enough market yet.

It's times like these I'm reminded of Mr. Pink from Resevoir Dogs who once said:

"**** all that! I'm very sorry the government taxes their tips, that's ****ed up. That ain't my fault. It would seem to me that waitresses are one of the many groups the government ****s in the *** on a regular basis. Look, if you show me a piece of paper that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it, put it to a vote, I'll vote for it, but what I won't do is play ball. And this non-college bull**** you're givin' me, I got two words for that: learn to ****in' type, 'cause if you're expecting me to help out with the rent you're in for a big ****in' surprise."

Well, he said it almost like that, he wasn't censored of course.

Great movie by the way. I know, it's over the top, and not completely relevant, but it's how I feel about this whole thing. We should be able to have our dual cpu systems on the up and up, not price-gouged the way they are currently.
 
Last edited:
If your attached to Intel's higher performance then you could do a dual quad core LGA1366 system for about $675.
I doubt it, at least not on a build with new parts. According to newegg the cheapest processors that could do it. are about $200 each. I doubt you could get your PSU, case, motherboard and ram for less than $275.

And i'm pretty sure in most benchmarks (even multithreaded ones) such a system would lose to a single i7-2600 (at least at stock, i'm not sure how overclockable bottom end 5500 series xeons are but my guess is that the low multipliers would limit achievable speeds). The only point to doing it would be if you really needed a lot of ram support.

Perhaps some day the prices will come down for newer dual CPU systems. Currently, they are cost prohibitive
It's not cost prohibitive for those who really need that much grunt in one system and/or need one of the other advantages of a dual socket setup (lots of ram in my case). Why would intel want to set things up so that a pair of xeons that beats an extreme edition chip cost less than the extreme edition chip?
 
Why would intel want to set things up so that a pair of xeons that beats an extreme edition chip cost less than the extreme edition chip?

The Extreme Edition is part of the problem. It's an overpriced chip to begin with, a rip-off.

The same question might be asked "Why did they even bother releasing chips like the 980\990X at the price they did?"

It was overpriced from day one.
 
Last edited:
This is what an almost-monopoly in processors causes.
It will only get worse I guess.
 
This is what an almost-monopoly in processors causes.
It will only get worse I guess.

Yeah, it's really too bad that AMD couldn't release a chip comparable to the 2600K at the same price point, and allow it to be paired with another in the same system.

If AMD did that, perhaps Intel would counter. It sure would be nice to have dual 2600K's (or equivalent) in the same system at a reasonable cost. (~$300 per CPU and a motherboard ~$300).
 
Yeah, it's really too bad that AMD couldn't release a chip comparable to the 2600K at the same price point, and allow it to be paired with another in the same system.

If AMD did that, perhaps Intel would counter. It sure would be nice to have dual 2600K's (or equivalent) in the same system at a reasonable cost. (~$300 per CPU and a motherboard ~$300).

Keep dreaming. As long as people are willing to pay the price premium for dual CPU systems, the prices will not come down. As long as Intel can keep the high-end market to itself, it can charge any price premium it wishes. If/when AMD does release something for the server market that has the same power per CPU as the 2600k, you can bet that it will be prohibitively expensive (over $1000).

Additionally, you are really talking about a niche market, dual-CPU systems. There's lots of demand for dual-GPU systems, and multiple hard drives. It really is a necessity for it to be more affordable. But there barely is any demand for dual-CPU, and those that really do want it, will pay the price premium for it. With how fast CPU's are nowadays, there hardly is any need, because ~1% of the mainstream market will ever use the top CPU's capabilities. That's why you don't see any dual-Phenom systems, dual-Athlon systems, dual- Core2Duo/Core2Quad systems, etc.
 
Personally I think the SR-4 is a better alternative.

SR-4Ultra.png


lawls

Nice photoshop, btw...:D
 
With how fast CPU's are nowadays, there hardly is any need, because ~1% of the mainstream market will ever use the top CPU's capabilities. That's why you don't see any dual-Phenom systems, dual-Athlon systems, dual- Core2Duo/Core2Quad systems, etc.

I experienced the same exact thing when I set up my first dual display system, back when nobody else had them.

Nowadays, the dual display system is everywhere and many people don't even think of building a new rig without having dual or triple displays. I know many corporations who now automatically order 2 displays for every PC they set up. But with dual CPU's, we aren't talking about mainstream anyway, but the enthusiasts.

Many people on this forum would jump at the chance to have a 'reasonably priced' dual 2600K system. The market is definately there. As for the need, you have protein folding, 3d rendering, video editing, obscene multitaskers, Second Life, and many other games that are starting to run in the multi-core space. Second Life easily can eat through the 2600K as if it were a decade old CPU, that's just one example.
 
Last edited:
I experienced the same exact thing when I set up my first dual display system, back when nobody else had them.

Nowadays, the dual display system is everywhere and many people don't even think of building a new rig without having dual or triple displays. I know many corporations who now automatically order 2 displays for every PC they set up. But with dual CPU's, we aren't talking about mainstream anyway, but the enthusiasts.

Many people on this forum would jump at the chance to have a 'reasonably priced' dual 2600K system. The market is definately there. As for the need, you have protein folding, 3d rendering, video editing, obscene multitaskers, Second Life, and many other games that are starting to run in the multi-core space. Second Life easily can eat through the 2600K as if it were a decade old CPU, that's just one example.

You're still talking about a ~1% market, of which more than 70% are more than willing to pay the price premium for dual 1366 systems. And there is a huge price premium over stock i7's and 1366 dual-CPU Xeons.

How many games are in the multi-core space? ~10 out of hundreds, if not thousands. How many multi-core games are actually able to max out an overclocked i7 2600k at any resolution? Maybe 1 or 2. Why does Intel have the 970? For when 4 hyperthreading cores isn't enough, but a 6-core hyperthreading processor can handle it. Intel isn't going to release something cheap for high-end mainstream when it has something else covering low-end enthusiast/server level. Especially with upcoming Ivy Bridge and LGA2011. And most of the things that do max out a CPU are not on-demand tasks (tasks that requires computing within a certain time-limit). Folding, rendering, etc are all examples of not on-demand tasks, so your point with those is moot. You set up a separate system for that, if you really want to.

And like I said, if it's really cores you need, get a couple of AMD's 8 or 12 core Opterons. And stick 4 of them in a quad-CPU motherboard.
 
Why does Intel have the 970? For when 4 hyperthreading cores isn't enough, but a 6-core hyperthreading processor can handle it.

I guess I don't understand this question fully.

With the introduction of the 2600K, the 970 is still fairly priced (in fact, it took a $300 price drop in 1 day bringing it to it's current price of ~$580 and I had previously mentioned that - I almost went with that chip over the 2600K at first, however, it is still twice the price of the 2600K and it is only slightly faster than the 2600K according to Passmark benchmarks and the 970 uses an older chipset. The 2 extra cores are great but under many benchmarks, they don't add up to that much.

The i7-970 (my second favorite Intel chip compared to the 2600K - price\perf-wise), is listed at 9,904 and the 2600K is listed at 9,223 for benchmarks.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

It would seem you would be getting a much higher value if you were to purchase 2 of the 2600K's (now @ $280 per CPU if you catch the MicroCenter sales) versus a single $580 i7-970.

The reason for this is with two 2600K CPU's combined in 1 system, your overall Passmark benchmarks would be 18,446 compared to only 9,904 benchmarks with a single i7-970 (which costs the same price as 2 of the 2600K's).

Wouldn't it seem logical to want the power of 18,446 versus 9,904 if they both cost the same price? (Two 2600K's = $560 versus one 970 = $580). (Granted, there would be expected extra costs for the dual motherboard providing the solution for the 2600K, but with such a huge performance margin gained, the additional cost for the motherboard would seem minimal). Again, we are talking 18,446 versus 9,904.

I think this is the root of my reasoning for wanting a dual 2600K system, but again, perhaps I am missing something. If the 2600K had QPI, it sounds like we would be all set.

The Opterons you mentioned, where do they begin to show up on the charts with performance anywhere near the 2600K in a similar price range? I'm trying to calculate the cost savings going that route but I just don't see their benchmarks near the 9,000 range, plus, for me personally, I prefer Intel chips at present. Still bitter over some AthonXP systems I had a while back.
 
Last edited:
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?

This is what the OP's argument boils down to:

I run a badly coded game called Second Life that needs a lot of cpu horsepower to run.
I run 3D modeling software that needs a lot of cpu horsepower to run.
I am unwilling to pay for hardware that is freely available on the market that will allow me to run these apps more efficiently.

Does that about sum it up? How is this Intel's fault? They do build hardware for "power users" like you, but as with cars, you have to be willing to pay a premium price for exotic hardware. A vast majority of computer users on this planet do not need the kind of processing power you claim you need. Intel is in the business of making money for their stockholders; why should they invest many millions of dollars developing, testing and fabricating exotic parts when the vast majority of the world's computers users will never need or use such a product?

Many people on this forum would jump at the chance to have a 'reasonably priced' dual 2600K system. The market is definately there. As for the need, you have protein folding, 3d rendering, video editing, obscene multitaskers, Second Life, and many other games that are starting to run in the multi-core space. Second Life easily can eat through the 2600K as if it were a decade old CPU, that's just one example.

Again, how is this Intel's fault? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to take your complaint to the game developers? For $300 today you can buy an unlocked quad core hyperthreaded cpu that will easily clock to 4.5GHz or higher, and will blow away anything else available at the same price point today, all while sipping energy like a Prius.
 
Last edited:
If AMD/Intel did create a 'reasonably priced' dual 2600K system, do you think for a second that their enterprise customers wouldn't buy that for their dual workstations instead of their Xeon solution? There is a reason they moved away from allowing their consumer level chips to be used in dual cpu motherboards. I think they learned a lot from the BP6 :D

Second Life has been around a long time, unless they've had a core engine revamp the only reason I can see it eating up a 2600K would be that it's poorly coded (and aging).
 
Benchmarks are really a stupid way to compare processors. Most benchmarks only test one or two aspects of the processor, not the entire spectrum. You need to see how processors compare with what specific applications you're using.

Some benchmarks benefit from having more cores. Others benefit from having higher clock speeds. You really are somewhat of an idiot for being so single-minded, and not looking at the full picture.

And +1 about second life being poorly coded. From what I see, the minimum specs is a single 800 mhz Pentium III processor. What the hell are you really doing that makes second life eat up all the cores?
 
Last edited:
There is a reason they moved away from allowing their consumer level chips to be used in dual cpu motherboards. I think they learned a lot from the BP6 :D

Imagine how much farther ahead we'd be with multithreading if they hadn't "learned" anything.
 
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?

This is what the OP's argument boils down to:

I run a badly coded game called Second Life that needs a lot of cpu horsepower to run.
I run 3D modeling software that needs a lot of cpu horsepower to run.
I am unwilling to pay for hardware that is freely available on the market that will allow me to run these apps more efficiently.

Does that about sum it up? How is this Intel's fault? They do build hardware for "power users" like you, but as with cars, you have to be willing to pay a premium price for exotic hardware. A vast majority of computer users on this planet do not need the kind of processing power you claim you need. Intel is in the business of making money for their stockholders; why should they invest many millions of dollars developing, testing and fabricating exotic parts when the vast majority of the world's computers users will never need or use such a product?



Again, how is this Intel's fault? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to take your complaint to the game developers? For $300 today you can buy an unlocked quad core hyperthreaded cpu that will easily clock to 4.5GHz or higher, and will blow away anything else available at the same price point today, all while sipping energy like a Prius.

So basically, this is a four page (will probably balloon to 10) where the OP simply cries about the world every other post instead of manning the fuck up and shelling out for an SR3 build. Want the premium performance, but don't wanna pay the premium? Well, tough luck. :rolleyes:
 
Benchmarks are really a stupid way to compare processors.
Some benchmarks benefit from having more cores. Others benefit from having higher clock speeds.

Indeed, this is true, I've seen this time and time again (I've built systems for over 20 years), but sometimes, it's nice to have the benchmarks to rely on when they are needed. I never use only benchmarks to make a CPU purchasing decision, but I do use them as a guide.

And +1 about second life being poorly coded. From what I see, the minimum specs is a single 800 mhz Pentium III processor. What the hell are you really doing that makes second life eat up all the cores?

Indeed, Second Life is very very poorly coded (in fact, many consider it to be the most poorly coded MMO in existence), and the only upside is that you are able to compensate for the ridiculously poor coding by throwing extra cores at it, as many as you have in your system. If you have 4, it will max them all, if you have 8, it will max them all, if you have 16, it will max them all. It's horribly bad coding combined with constantly changing dynamic content (much of the coding could throw CPU to the GPU instead, however, they are not there yet and only have a few items like avatar clothing, hardware skinning, etc. that can use the GPU, that is why the CPU is hit so hard, it's doing GPU work).

Most people who play it as much as I do will tell you that you pretty much need a protein folder to play it with decent frames in a crowded sim.

That is why, for me, 4 cores are not enough, especially when running in eyefinity style resolutions like 5760x2160 with dynamic shadows and illumination turned on. And also, the 800mhz Pentium III processor is almost possible with the processor constantly at 100% CPU, however, those specs (if not outdated), are completely unrealistic and misleading. You've probably played games in the past where you look on the box and it lists the minimum specs as the maximum, well with SL, it's 10X that type of misleading malfeasance, especially if you have all the graphics set to Super and are running in 5760x2160.

That is why I wish I could just double my cores with the 2600K, however, unlike a GPU, SSD, memory, etc., currently, we are unable to double the 2600K CPU in our systems due to no QPI. Bummer.
 
Last edited:
If AMD/Intel did create a 'reasonably priced' dual 2600K system, do you think for a second that their enterprise customers wouldn't buy that for their dual workstations instead of their Xeon solution? There is a reason they moved away from allowing their consumer level chips to be used in dual cpu motherboards. I think they learned a lot from the BP6 :D

Second Life has been around a long time, unless they've had a core engine revamp the only reason I can see it eating up a 2600K would be that it's poorly coded (and aging).

I know what you are saying, but Intel is the master of skimping on little items, i.e, Quicksync on the P67, perhaps they could offer a dual 2600K and just skimp on some enterprise needed feature.

Oh, and SL is coded worse than any other game on the planet, it allows you to compensate with extra cores however, as many as you have.


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.

So would I, unfortunately, Lamborghini's are very very expensive. Some people would say too expensive, others would say they are priced just right. The same is true of the Xeon processor. Some people think it is just overpriced, and others are willing to pay for them.

Some people are also willing to pay for Monster Cables at Best Buy. Other people see those cables as a complete waste of money and prefer Monoprice.
 
Last edited:
If a quad-core processor isn't enough for you, then get a hex-core. And if that's not enough, then spend the money to get a workstation/server board. Wishing for something that doesn't exist will not make it happen magically.
 
If a quad-core processor isn't enough for you, then get a hex-core. And if that's not enough, then spend the money to get a workstation/server board. Wishing for something that doesn't exist will not make it happen magically.

I have looked at the SR-2 MB, it's tempting. The price of the Xeon's gets me though. I think they are a little overpriced. If the SR-2 worked with 2600K's, I would already have ordered it. :)
 
So basically, this is a four page (will probably balloon to 10) where the OP simply cries about the world every other post instead of manning the fuck up and shelling out for an SR3 build. Want the premium performance, but don't wanna pay the premium? Well, tough luck. :rolleyes:

+ 1 to this. Pretty much all of OP's posts are crying about the lack of a premium build for non-premium prices.

If Intel never made the LGA1366 i7's compatible with dual-CPU systems, which is an enthusiast CPU/socket, what makes you think they will make LGA1155 i7's compatible with a dual-CPU system, especially when it is a mainstream socket/processor?
 
So, what is your plan? LGA 2011?

For now I'm going with a simple 2600K and wishing it could go dual. I keep having these elaborate dreams about it...

I thought LGA2011 wasn't going to be ready until q3 though. I might make due with the 2600K for now and then go dual on my next build. I originally wanted to get the i970 when it dropped $300, but it just didn't seem like the i970 was worth the extra $300 more than the 2600K for the extra 2 cores. I really would rather spend that extra $300 on a 2nd 2600K but because it doesn't do qpi, I can't have 2 in 1 system. That's the whole problem. Sure was nice way back when. Keep hoping for a resurgence.

dual_procs.jpg
 
Last edited:
What makes you think that a consumer CPU capable of running a dual-processor configuration would be cheaper than their workstation counterparts? Want more cores, pay for it, want hyper-threading, pay more for it, want more memory channels... DP is just another feature that you have to pay for.



(and wishing for AMD to be on top would not guarantee anything would be any cheaper, especially after 4 years of razor thin margins. Just ask those who paid $500-$1000 for the first dual-core CPUs from them).
 
What makes you think that a consumer CPU capable of running a dual-processor configuration would be cheaper than their workstation counterparts? Want more cores, pay for it, want hyper-threading, pay more for it, want more memory channels... DP is just another feature that you have to pay for.



(and wishing for AMD to be on top would not guarantee anything would be any cheaper, especially after 4 years of razor thin margins. Just ask those who paid $500-$1000 for the first dual-core CPUs from them).

That's the thing, I think I am at the point where I have just outgrown the consumer market and am now needing to pay a fortune for smaller gains (entering the pro workstation\server arena). :(
 
I don't see how you can call the ability to double your processing power a small gain,

It's a smaller gain in terms of how much money you have to pay and the performance that is gained from it.

I would probably be happy with the performance of two 2600K processors.

That would cost under $600.

Because I can't just have two of them in the same system, I'll probably have to pay way more than that, to the point where it really won't be worth it for my application. :(
 
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?

This is what the OP's argument boils down to:

I run a badly coded game called Second Life that needs a lot of cpu horsepower to run.
I run 3D modeling software that needs a lot of cpu horsepower to run.
I am unwilling to pay for hardware that is freely available on the market that will allow me to run these apps more efficiently.

Does that about sum it up? How is this Intel's fault? They do build hardware for "power users" like you, but as with cars, you have to be willing to pay a premium price for exotic hardware. A vast majority of computer users on this planet do not need the kind of processing power you claim you need. Intel is in the business of making money for their stockholders; why should they invest many millions of dollars developing, testing and fabricating exotic parts when the vast majority of the world's computers users will never need or use such a product?



Again, how is this Intel's fault? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to take your complaint to the game developers? For $300 today you can buy an unlocked quad core hyperthreaded cpu that will easily clock to 4.5GHz or higher, and will blow away anything else available at the same price point today, all while sipping energy like a Prius.

I am not trying to break down your argument, but it is possible to build a car yourself that has performance similar to the Lamborghini, at a cost similar to the Subaru. That would be the car enthusiast version of building your own computer. However a car has a much lower cost of production than say a CPU. The car you just need to have access to a shop and the appropriate parts. The CPU on the other hand requires a muli-billion dollar fab, and millions in R&D before you can even pump out one CPU. A huge barrier to entry, and not even getting into patent issues with the x86 architecture.

I am not sure why I wanted to say that but your comment made me analyse computing as a whole. There is room for the enthusiast, but even the most die-hard, and creative entusiast cant create something from scratch, they have to rely on what is available. While a car enthusiast is only limited by the limits of physics, and materials, and thier creativity is unhindered.

I may get flamed but I really am on a similar thinking as the OP. The engineers could make it possible to have dual socket consumer boards possible, and find ways of diferentiating them from their server line up so it does not canabalize profits.

On crossfire/SLI, and comparing it to multi-socket consumer boards, they could put limits on features that would still make server grade components better. Like consumer boards are limited to 2 processors interconnected (like 6850/GTX460 for video cards), and the sever would only have the 4x socket. My argument may be weak, I am just trying to brainstorm solutions so that everybody wins. I don't see how selling two times as many processors is such a bad idea for a manufacturer when the person would have only bought one if faced with the delima of choosing between $300, vs $1000+ processors.
 
For the tl;dr crowd -- I agree it's too bad chipmakers don't subsidize my interests because it would be nice of them to do that. But businesses are out to make money, and giving enthusiasts a cheap dual core system isn't considered charitable giving (though I'm open to ideas on how to accomplish this.)

Long version:

I may get flamed but I really am on a similar thinking as the OP. The engineers could make it possible to have dual socket consumer boards possible, and find ways of diferentiating them from their server line up so it does not canabalize profits.

I'm not trying to flame you because you've actually got a very logical line of thinking there. I don't think they really can do it without cannibalizing profits though. The unit cost of creating 1 extra chip is low. And enthusiasts would rejoice and eat it up. But we're a pretty small slice of the market. Doubling our sales would be great, but the big players are still the OEMs and their customers (both end consumers and business clients.) 75+% of home users don't take full advantage of a quad core processor in today's environment let alone a dual processor system (although just imagine the marketing buzzwords you could make for that system.) On the business sales side, IT purchasers are smart enough to realize that disabling a few things here and there might not impact their long term administration costs very much and that those recurring costs would be offset by the lower purchasing costs. They'll figure out that their next CAD workstation doesn't actually need to be a workstation grade dual processor computer (something my engineering firm figured out a long time ago though most of our CAD is pretty lightweight.) Some server admins are already asking for large server farms of Atom processors (with low margins) instead of Xeons (with high margins) because of their attractive thermal performance and low cost (stuff a ton of Atoms in a box vs a handfull of Xeons.) That cuts into a chipmaker's overall profits, and at the end of the day they're corporations that are in business to make money. So they won't let something like that happen in the long run.

It is possible that we'll see more economical dual processor systems or other innovative things that make us salivate. But only competition will get us there. AMD keeps Intel moving forward, but not consistently enough or fast enough. The rise of ARM architecture and it's eventual migration into areas currently dominated by x86 could cause Intel to resort to creating more innovative solutions or bringing back old ones going forward (Larrabee, cheap multiprocessor systems, better IA-64, optical computing?, etc.)
 
I would probably be happy with the performance of two 2600K processors.

That would cost under $600.

It wouldn't cost less than $600 unless you got some crazy sales. 2600ks are going for $329 a piece on Newegg right now.

I have a solution that actually exists in the real world that costs a less than your theoretical dual 2600k solution. I realize this probably won't be as fast as two Sandy Bridge processors but those systems don't exist yet. However, I haven't seen a 4 core

For $575 you can get an 8-core Opteron with a dual socket motherboard.

$575 - ASUS KGPE-D16 Dual Socket G34 AMD SR5690 SSI EEB 3.61 Dual 8/12 Core AMD Opteron 6000 series Server Motherboard + AMD Opteron 6128 Magny-Cours 2.0GHz 8 x 512KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache Socket G34 115W 8-Core Server Processor

For another $275 you can add an additional 8 core Opteron to the system.

$275 - AMD Opteron 6128 Magny-Cours 2.0GHz 8 x 512KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache Socket G34 115W 8-Core Server Processor

An imaginary dual processor i2600k system would cost $658 for the two CPUs, plus say $300 for the motherboard putting you at about $950. For $100 less ($850) you can get 16 cores. The included motherboard will even take regular DDR3 (i.e., unregistered non-ECC) If Second Life is as multithreaded as you make it sound, the decreased performance per core should be more than made up by having 4 times as many cores.
 
That would cost under $600.

No, it wouldn't. There is more to a multi-processor system than just sticking them on a board. There are all kinds of issues with memory access, locking, PCI communications, power, and so on and so forth. The more processors you have, the bigger these issues get. It takes additional hardware to solve that so things cost more.

That is one of the reasons you have to get things like Xeons to do multi-CPU stuff. The regular i7s do not have the hardware needed. Have to get special motherboards too. It isn't just adding a second socket.

Heck you find all kinds of fun stuff in high end multi-CPU systems, like needing to add VRM modules for each CPU, having different RAM banks where each CPU is responsible for a certain part of the total system RAM. Needing FBDIMMs, to keep the RAM electrical issues in check.

If you want more processors, more cores, Intel will be happy to accommodate you. However it'll cost you and that is just life. They have 8 core processors out right now, have for some time. The Xeon L7555, X7550 and X7560 are all 8 core CPUs. Get a board with an Intel 7500 Northbridge and you can have 4 of them on a board, if you like. Supermicro makes boards that support it.

You won't just be dropping and random chip on them though, in addition to the fact that they are different hardware, they are a different socket: LGA 1567.

What it comes down to is that the more you want in one system, on one board, the more the cost goes up and it is not a linear scale. This is precisely why clusters are used in so many things. In many cases, it is far better to get a good interconnect (GigE often works, Infiniband or the like work better if you need lower latency) and have a bunch of systems work together. Costs less and is more flexible.

However if you really need multi-CPU technology, it is out there. Intel will give you up to 4 CPUs, 32 cores, for x86. Have to go Itanium if you need more than that.

So if this is really important for some reason, then go and research the Xeon offerings. There are lots and they are good (we use them in servers at work). Evaluate clustering first though. Many apps (3D rendering, virtual instruments, antenna simulation, etc, etc) work just as fast on a cluster as on a single system and you can save a ton of money, and have way more upgrade flexibility.

If this is just trying to be l33t and have a dual CPU system for its own sake, knock it off nobody is impressed, particularly since you don't.

In terms of gaming, none of this is useful. Get a 2600k and overclock it. Most games use 2 cores fairly well, and little after that, a couple make reasonable or good use of 4. A stock 2600 is plenty to make any GPUs out there, never mind overclocked. More cores would get you nothing.
 
It wouldn't cost less than $600 unless you got some crazy sales. 2600ks are going for $329 a piece on Newegg right now.

Microcenter just had them for $279 each.

I have a solution that actually exists in the real world that costs a less than your theoretical dual 2600k solution. I realize this probably won't be as fast as two Sandy Bridge processors but those systems don't exist yet. However, I haven't seen a 4 core

For $575 you can get an 8-core Opteron with a dual socket motherboard.

I'll take a look, however, I don't really care for AMD for CPU's as of late. I may give them another chance some day. Had a bad experience with a pair of Athlons many years back.
 
Back
Top