Dual i7-2600K Motherboard

Discussion in 'Motherboards' started by LittleTinyScooby, Mar 5, 2011.

  1. Spooony

    Spooony 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,073
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    For cpu intensive programs like video editing Amd is a big no due to their lack of SSE instructions in their cpus.
     
  2. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    This is not true...at all....

    I am not merely leaving AMD out due to the via chipset debacle, that was just one nuance of going with AMD at the time. At that time, it was the only viable AMD option, the AMD\via combo.

    The reason I wouldn't go with AMD today is because they don't have a comparable chip to purchase. Just look at the chart.

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

    If a 2600K won't cut it, what AMD chip possibly could in the same price range?

    The only chip I would even consider at the moment would be the Intel i7-970 (my first choice before 2600K), and even that one won't cut it. That is why I suggesed doubling the 2600K, because that is starting to get into the range of cpu power I would like to have for SL. So for the moment, I am out of luck, not because I won't go AMD, but because there is not a chip that can give me the performance I am looking for at a price that I consider to be fair.

    When SSD"s were brand new, what did we do? We tried them out and then we doubled them in our systems, same with GPU's. We should be able to double our CPU's whenever we want but currently we can't. We used to be able to but the industry took that away and it would be nice if they gave it back but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps if AMD offered up some competition in this area, it could force Intel to give us items like a dual 2600K option.

    If AMD released a chip today that was as powerful as the 2600K and could be doubled in a system, I would probably go with it, because at the moment, Intel does not offer that solution, but neither does AMD.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
  3. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    You really aren't listening to anything we're saying, are you?

    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.
     
  4. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    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?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
  5. ryan_975

    ryan_975 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,189
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    You are really one uninformed individual aren't you? AMD CPU's have had SSE instructions since the Athlon XP, It got SSE2 with the Athlon 64, SSE3 with the E revision of Athlon 64.


    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2011
  6. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    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.
     
  7. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    I knew AMD has had SSE for a while now. (that was a different person who posted the SSE item).

    So are you saying this is all hypothetical AMD system?

    I'm saying, what is the next step up in terms of a multi-core system that is real, and can be purchased to compete with a dual 2600K system if it existed?

    I know I can't build a dual 2600K because the industry won't let me. So, what actual AMD system can I build that would be equivalent without entering the overpriced server market realm?
     
  8. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Which motherboard can support this configuration of 4 Opterons? How much is it?

    But also, Holy MOLY!

    I sure hope 32-48 AMD cores can beat 8 Intel 2600K cores. If not.....WTF??

    But either way, it should not take that many cores, or even close to that many cores for AMD to beat Intel.

    AMD should be giving their CPU's more power one would think.

    Just look at Nvidia versus AMD. They are neck and neck with thier GPU offerings. Why is AMD so out of the loop in terms of CPU performance? When will AMD even be close, when is Bulldozer going to be here?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  9. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    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).

    Whether or not AMD Opterons beat out Xeons highly depends on the application used. Ones that can use all of Opteron's cores usually beat out Xeons. Ones that like higher clock speeds and IPC's (instructions per clock) do better with Xeon systems.

    Quad Opteron motherboard

    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.
     
  10. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    That's the whole problem and I can't accept it. We should be able to put two of these chips together, but we can't, until enough people demand it from the market. Hardcore gamers should have more options. We should not have to pay corporate server prices for our gaming systems.


    Unfortunately, that is not the case. I am in SL right now in a crowded sim (30+ people) and with full detail I am getting between 12.5 and 17 fps on 1 monitor only on my brand new i7-2600K \ GTX 570 system.

    On only 1 monitor as low as 1680x1050, SL utilizes everything it can with full detail. So, you can imagine what happens with more than 1 monitor, not to mention 6 (I have to step down detail considerably). But also, 3 and 6 monitor configs are the future of gaming according to AMD and the Eyfinity solution, so why would you want to go against what AMD is selling if you are into AMD so much? Embrace this new AMD GPU tech, like you embrace AMD CPU's.

    http://www.amd.com/us/products/tech...nology/for-consumers/Pages/for-consumers.aspx

    ^^^^^AMD APPROVED 6 Monitor Configurations^^^^^ The future is now!

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  11. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    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.
     
  12. mannyman

    mannyman 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,854
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    but but what about 2 5970 eyefinity 12's in CF with a total of 24 screens?
     
  13. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    HOLY MOLY!

    You are only using 1 monitor?

    You do NOT know what you are missing.

    At least upgrade to 3 pronto! And I am not suggesting that for gaming only. I do not know how you can only use 1 monitor. Multi-monitors have been the standard for at least 5 years now. What are you waiting for? Or do you have a hi-rez 30 inch 2560x1600 or something? if so, those are nice too as an alternative to a multi-display rig, however, they are spendy. You can pick up 6 22 inch Samsungs for $1,199, close to the price of only a single 30 inch hi-rez solution. If you go with a cheaper brand monitor, you can get 6 for under $899 which is less than the price of one 30 inch hi-rez Dell display which is less than the price of just one overpriced CPU (980X \ 990X \ 995X).
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  14. mannyman

    mannyman 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,854
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    i wish i could upgrade to 3 myself, but alas monitors are not cheap
     
  15. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Compared to the prices of high end video cards, monitors are cheap. You can get 2 monitors for the price of 1 good GPU.

    If you don't care about the brand, you can get 3 monitors for less then the price of one Nvidia GTX 580.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  16. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    I had 3 for the longest time, about 6 to 7 years. I only recently added the top rack because even 3 does not provide enough desktop space after a while. You just open browser windows or any other app windows and you want to have the data all displayed at once. AMD realizes this and they have acted on it by providing the Eyefinity solution.

    I only wish Intel would act and provide the dual 2600K solution so enthusiasts would not have to pay server solution prices for gaming rigs. Intel could learn from AMD in this respect.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  17. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    And this is one of the reasons I would avoid AMD for CPU's as of late. They need to get their **** together in this arena.
     
  18. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    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.
     
  19. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  20. matrix563

    matrix563 [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    19,032
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    intel and amd don't offer dual cpu configurations except for server parts. instead of second life just play real life. much better graphics :p

    haha jk but for real, there will never be enough interest for either to offer dual socket consumer boards
     
  21. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Seems to be the unfortunate reality regarding dual socket boards. They really need to come down to the enthusiast level. Maybe someday...

    As for SL graphics, indeed, they do need to improve tremendously. :) What SL really needs to do is add more GPU specific features. Currently, they unfortunately rely on the CPU way too much, that is the whole reason SL can bring any system to its knees. So, in the meantime, if you are in SL and want to get the most out of it, you really need to ramp up your CPU.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  22. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    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.
     
  23. tonytnnt

    tonytnnt Gawd

    Messages:
    871
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    +1

    Your view of reality is very skewed if you think HardForum posters are indicative of computer users or even gamers. And if you think the multidisplay subforum is indicative of HardForum, you're wrong.
     
  24. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    I guess I've seen more instances of dual screens than most people. Many companies I have visited often have dual screens as the standard these days (especially for the Finance and IT departments, but also Doc Control \ CAD depts, etc.).

    However, I can see a similar thing that you have mentioned with dual displays in regards to home users. When I had my first analog modem, 99% of my relatives didn't know what they were or had no use for them. It just became something that was adopted as a standard over time, the same thing then occured with DSL and Cable modems and SLI video cards. Adoption became more widespread. I would guess it might be a few more years before it truly becomes a standard. Maybe if Nvidia follows AMD's lead in terms of how many displays they allow you to attach to a single card.

    Part of what hindered multi-displays in the past was the 2 video card requirement. Then, the industry started adding 2 ports to almost every card available (even mid to low range cards). Now, the higher end cards are adding 4, 5, 6 ports, making it easier to have massive multi-display systems. If Nvidia starts to follow, it could really help with mass adoption in this arena. I know I almost didn't purchase the 570 myself because of the port limitation. I really think the 570 should have had at least 3 true display ports (simutaneous, it has 3 physical ports, but only 2 can be used at once at least without cloning). I think Nvidia will come around during their next launch (590 doesn't count because it is a monster). Perhaps Nvidia is playing a wait and see game at the moment to determine if and when they should start adding more ports to their products. It should be an interesting outcome.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  25. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Dual displays are much more frequent than triple displays, that is for sure. Mostly due to the fact that it can be run on pretty much any generation card, does not require displayport for running on a single card, and those running two displays do not use both for gaming.

    SLI and Crossfire still is not widespread. The majority of [H] users run single cards, or around half. (maybe high-end, but single nonetheless). If you factor in the fact that [H] does not represent the majority of users, you get a marginal amount of computer users running SLI and Crossfire (maybe 25%).
     
  26. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Indeed, that is what AMD is trying to change. Just think they should have re-thought the display port. If it weren't for the display port, AMD probably would sell more of their cards, but instead, the display port is hindering the 3 display standard a bit, but I have to admit, the display port sure is tiny, which makes it convenient in that respect. Easier to fit more on a single card.

    When I got my first ATI eyefinity card, I had to wait to order a $29 part that would allow me to convert one of the display ports to DVI before I could use the single card to run 3 displays because I wasn't about to purchase an overpriced display port monitor. If display port catches on, those monitors will come down in price if they haven't already.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011
  27. LittleTinyScooby

    LittleTinyScooby Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    130
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    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.
     
  28. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    This thread again? Seriously, you can't let it go? I expect the e-mail to be something along the lines of "Hell no!" but of course worded much more nicely. Or they'll just send it off to the trash as some delusional dreamer.
     
  29. omniscence

    omniscence [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,311
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    They can't release it because it is not possible. End of story.
     
  30. tonytnnt

    tonytnnt Gawd

    Messages:
    871
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
  31. Neb

    Neb 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,320
    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2000
    They won't release it because the already have a product for people that need that level of performance: the MP Xeons
     
  32. ryan_975

    ryan_975 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,189
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006

    Even if by some miracle they suddenly wanted to make a dual 1156 board, ,they still couldn't without disrupting their entire product line and pissing off every large volume customer they have.

    Intel designed socket 1155 CPUs in a way that they can only communicate with the southbridge (i.e USB, SATA, etc controllers) via the DMI 2.0 interface and discrete graphics card via 8 PCIe lanes. You'll simply have to wait for the new generation of Xeon processors that are based on Sandy Bridge architecture.
     
  33. Demonfire20

    Demonfire20 n00b

    Messages:
    1
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Sorry to be a necromancer and resurrecting this old thread, but I had just started searching to see if there were any companies selling dual CPU boards for the 1155 socket.... more for sh*ts-n-giggles than anything else.

    First, there may be some hope for the OP in the new Z68 chipset boards.... while they do not offer support for multiple CPUs, they do allow one to utilize both the CPU and the integrated GPU capabilities of the 1155. This is reported to allow graphics rendering, both for video and 3d images, and video transcoding at upto 3x faster than P67 chipsets, while still allowing OCing the CPU. And no, you do not have to use on-board graphics to take advantage of this.

    This being said, I too would love to see a dual CPU 2600K solution. I know they do not exist, and don't really need one, but I would love to see one in action if they did exist. I do have additional logic comments on the previous 8 pages of posts though.

    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. It would just take a lot of very indepth mobo design work to make it happen, which is not cost effective for anyone, and would likely got put to a stop by Intel lawyers before production anyway, so why try.

    aubsxc said:
    Two things..... One, Top Gear shows that in 2004 a Mitsubishi EVO VIII FQ400 (a 400HP version available in UK) could hang with a Lamborghini Murcielago in all but long straights.... bone stock! And this version costs roughly 1/3 the cost of the Murcielago

    Second, we are enthusiasts here who build our own, or upgrade our own. This means that to compare granny-smith to granny-smith you would need to state that your WRX, with little modification, would need to compare to a Lamborghini. I hate to tell you, if you have the 2.5L WRX, it does compare with relatively little modding. Slap in a slightly larger turbo, stage 2 clutch, and reflash the ECU and you could have just over 400HP at the wheels which would blow the doors off a bone stock Lambo


    One other observation, I have seen from looking over the recent history of Intel chips..... I bet multiple CPU boards for enthusiast level CPUs will be back, just not real soon. CPUs started slow, then became faster over time. When it seemed they were almost tapped out, we got dual CPU boards. Then Intel added Hyper Threading and things got even faster, and clock speeds got higher. Then the Pentium D came out, dual core at 3GHz, then Intel said higher clock speeds is not the future, lower clock speeds but multiple core CPUs was the future. When Core2 came out, the fastest was only about 1.6GHz.... why? MARKETING. Intel had the ability to have 3GHz dual cores, they had already done it with 'server' CPUs, but the general public (mom checking her e-mail, basic word processing, etc.) didn't need them, so why make them..... over the past 6 years the dual and quad cores have slowly become faster and faster.... we are now at 3.2GHz quads, with virtualization, overclockable to 5.1GHz with extreme systems using the 2600K CPUs.... in the next few years there will be some high-end consumer grade dual CPU setups, they already have the ability to do so, but are holding back because we don't 'need' them right now.

    And don't give me the 'it would over-shadow/cut into sales from the server boards' line either.... I run servers for a living, if they had dual 1155 boards available, but limited to 16G RAM, or without functionality like RAID, neither of which are required in home/gaming rigs, there would still be plenty of market for the server boards/CPUs.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
  34. xBanzai89

    xBanzai89 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,722
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Never will see it. Too much of a niche product.
     
  35. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,034
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    As long as AMD and Intel are able to squeeze more cores onto a single CPU than the average consumer needs, you will never see a dual-socket consumer/enthusiast level board that uses consumer/enthusiast class CPUs. You will only see it in server type boards with server processors.
     
  36. grambo

    grambo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,117
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    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?
     
  37. SpeedyVV

    SpeedyVV [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,212
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Dont feel bad... I did the same retarded thing... :mad:

    Does SL really take that much CPU? I used to run it on a laptop with very little CPU power.

    WTF indeed.
     
  38. tonytnnt

    tonytnnt Gawd

    Messages:
    871
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    just let this thread die... it's such a horrible zombie.
     
  39. plugwash

    plugwash [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,532
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    They didn't have QPI but they were designed to share a front side bus and maintain cache coherency.

    Modern desktop CPUs don't have anything resembling a front side bus. You could possiblly hack together a system that linked them over PCIe using non-transparent bridges but you would still have the problem of how to provide memory sharing and cache coherency without which they wouldn't really be a multiprocessor system in the conventional sense.
     
  40. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    I also got suckered into reading this bag-o-crap.
    I can't believe you all let him troll you for 10 pages :mad:
    Hey played really, really dumb, and had you all con-jobbed, at the expense of your good nature of trying to help.
    Troll of the year !!!