Dual i7-2600K Motherboard

A lot of people have said it on here already, and when I first read this thread I was kind of confused too. I definitely remember there being dual consumer CPU's. Except, back then, in reality... it wasn't really geared towards the consumer. That was top notch stuff. If you had that, you were the coolest geek on the block (LOL). But seriously. I remember there being dual socket 370 CPU's... or Dual P3's. One of them. The thing was, there was no software to support it. XP was the first OS to truly support SMP, I believe.. and that was a very big deal.. and still kind of is, for anyone running XP with newer hardware, for whatever reason. I could never get two CPU's to work together. The stepping had to be the same, etc... and back then, a lot of online stores didn't even list that sort of information. Man... this thread really brought some nostalgia into me. Oh, and the other thing... about Dual i7's.. why not? So what if people want to go a different route than the one most people prefer. I really don't see the sense in it, since hyperthreading (I know, HT cores are only 33% faster)... but maybe thats why. If you had a dual board to support two i5's.. that would make more sense. I would assume two i5's would outperform an i7, since those extra cores are only 33% faster. With two i5's in SMP, you'd have 8 FULL speed cores... but would still lack the additional cache of the i7... but thats just a guess, and I could be wrong. I'm sure Intel and AMD already thought this all up before we did. There's a reason for everything.
 
netsider said:
A lot of people have said it on here already, and when I first read this thread I was kind of confused too. I definitely remember there being dual consumer CPU's. Except, back then, in reality... it wasn't really geared towards the consumer. That was top notch stuff. If you had that, you were the coolest geek on the block (LOL). But seriously. I remember there being dual socket 370 CPU's... or Dual P3's. One of them. The thing was, there was no software to support it. XP was the first OS to truly support SMP, I believe.. and that was a very big deal.. and still kind of is, for anyone running XP with newer hardware, for whatever reason. I could never get two CPU's to work together. The stepping had to be the same, etc... and back then, a lot of online stores didn't even list that sort of information. Man... this thread really brought some nostalgia into me. Oh, and the other thing... about Dual i7's.. why not? So what if people want to go a different route than the one most people prefer. I really don't see the sense in it, since hyperthreading (I know, HT cores are only 33% faster)... but maybe thats why. If you had a dual board to support two i5's.. that would make more sense. I would assume two i5's would outperform an i7, since those extra cores are only 33% faster. With two i5's in SMP, you'd have 8 FULL speed cores... but would still lack the additional cache of the i7... but thats just a guess, and I could be wrong. I'm sure Intel and AMD already thought this all up before we did. There's a reason for everything.
Click to expand...

There were boards that supported dual socket 370 P3 "Coppermine" cpus..I ran the legendary Abit VP6 (RIP Abit:( ) with a pair of P3 [email protected], I did not have "matched" steppings..

AMD also had dual cpu boards with the Socket A design..You just had to use mobile "Barton" based cpus IIRC..

XP was not the first OS to support SMP, Windows 2000 was..As far as software support it was there in certain areas..Even Quake 3 supported SMP..
 
Windows NT 4.0 with the SMP HAL would recognize and utilize multiple processors.
 
Intel made dual-processor SMP cheap and accessible starting with the P5. They did this to gain traction in a workstation market where they were NOT well-respected. They still reserved quad-CPU support for the Pentium Pro, but they made sure the dual-core SMP was everywhere.

Once the dual-socket market took off for Intel, they made it an upmarket feature, just like every other high-end vendor. It's not like they're doing anything different from their predecessors.

Want SMP on a budget? Well then, support other companies aside from Intel and AMD!
 
Last edited:
netsider said:
A lot of people have said it on here already, and when I first read this thread I was kind of confused too. I definitely remember there being dual consumer CPU's. Except, back then, in reality... it wasn't really geared towards the consumer. That was top notch stuff. If you had that, you were the coolest geek on the block (LOL). But seriously. I remember there being dual socket 370 CPU's... or Dual P3's. One of them. The thing was, there was no software to support it. XP was the first OS to truly support SMP, I believe.. and that was a very big deal.. and still kind of is, for anyone running XP with newer hardware, for whatever reason. I could never get two CPU's to work together. The stepping had to be the same, etc... and back then, a lot of online stores didn't even list that sort of information. Man... this thread really brought some nostalgia into me. Oh, and the other thing... about Dual i7's.. why not? So what if people want to go a different route than the one most people prefer. I really don't see the sense in it, since hyperthreading (I know, HT cores are only 33% faster)... but maybe thats why. If you had a dual board to support two i5's.. that would make more sense. I would assume two i5's would outperform an i7, since those extra cores are only 33% faster. With two i5's in SMP, you'd have 8 FULL speed cores... but would still lack the additional cache of the i7... but thats just a guess, and I could be wrong. I'm sure Intel and AMD already thought this all up before we did. There's a reason for everything.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck did you necro this thread?

The last post before you was over a year old, not to mention this entire stupid thread was the OP wanting a cheap dual CPU board to play Second Life.

SECOND LIFE... come on now, wtf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top