light65536
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 29
Is there any development to making multiple processor motherboards? So that instead of throwing away our old chips we could re-use them. Can Windows support multiple CPU processors ?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!
Multi processor motherboards
- Thread starter light65536
- Start date
light65536
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 29
Okay.. I look this up, it looks like only XEON. But I think it would be cool to be able to save my old chips and just plug a new one in.
or maybe not?
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/01/27/core-i7-can-work-dual-cpu-mode/
or maybe not?
http://semiaccurate.com/2010/01/27/core-i7-can-work-dual-cpu-mode/
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Opteron (AMD) can do it also. However you are talking about many different types if CPU's working together, the problems with getting that to work would be large for the performance assuming SMP to start with and not even outside of the same/current gen/socket. Often times when someone upgrades the CPU is so out dated that even the lowest end current CPU can keep up with it, they also tend to draw more power for the amount of processing they do. Then you have to think about socket types, you might get one or two CPU's out of a socket and then it changes, so things as simple as physical dimensions and design would stop this from ever happening. Then add in chipsets, architecture changes, the problems are so massive that it is not practical in any way shape or form and will never happen.
These days only Xeons and Opterons can run in SMP. Way back in the day, desktop Celerons and P3's could do SMP, but with any modern cpu they are locked down.
Generally multi CPU systems are very expensive, as the boards are expensive, and the cpu's also. There is generally no or VERY limited overclocking as well, with some very rare exceptions.
Generally multi CPU systems are very expensive, as the boards are expensive, and the cpu's also. There is generally no or VERY limited overclocking as well, with some very rare exceptions.
I still have a "scratch" system based on AMD Athlon CPUs. They were official Single Processor, but the "lead pencil" trick made them into Multi Processor. The motherboard is an Asus A7M-266D. Runs XP of course. I wouldn't even try to load up Win 7 unless it was a very rainy day after a whole week of very rainy days.
That all said, these were single-core CPUs. If I can get 4 or even 6 cores in one CPU, and I can run hyperthreading, do I really need multiple CPUs anymore for 99.9% of what I use my computer for?
Red Machine D
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 945
IIRC the last consumer-level dual CPU platform was the Skulltrail, and that ran C2E QX9775s.
Evga's SR-2 was aimed at hardcore enthusiasts, however it still needed xeon CPU's, these could be had quite cheaply if you knew where to look. Given that it was designed with overclocking in mind i would say that this was the last non server dual CPU platform - however setup costs are not cheap, even if you do get cheap cpu's
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
I think everyone is getting a bit off on a tangent. There are no/few performance multi cpu boards for the 2011 socket because the E5 line (as far as I know) are all multi locked, so no OCing etc etc.
However, he did not ask about new systems or the like, he is asking about having a say Core2 CPU and upgrading to a SB cpu while keep the Core2 in the same rig/mobo. That is mixing and matching old/new CPUs in a single mobo.
However, he did not ask about new systems or the like, he is asking about having a say Core2 CPU and upgrading to a SB cpu while keep the Core2 in the same rig/mobo. That is mixing and matching old/new CPUs in a single mobo.
light65536
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2006
- Messages
- 29
Exactly.. that'd be so cool.. you have like 4 slots for CPU's then keep same MB and just add in CPU's.
While maybe a bit off topic but same idea.. I have a 480 gtx and a 8800.. can I make use of both of them ?
While maybe a bit off topic but same idea.. I have a 480 gtx and a 8800.. can I make use of both of them ?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,339
how would that work with chipsets, you would have to mix chipsets, ram speeds.. the cost would likely be far more than simply buying a new system, also how would you allocate processes?
I would get annoyed if windows kept using the older slower processor for things...
yes you can use your card together, one as a physx processor, SLI no can do.
I would get annoyed if windows kept using the older slower processor for things...
yes you can use your card together, one as a physx processor, SLI no can do.
hotcrandel
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 781
There isn't any money for intel to do such a thing... They want to sell new chips, and new chipsets.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Right, and not just ram speeds, but types also, we have been moving from DDR2/3 etc pretty fast these days. Also, these kind of CPU's don't have SMP, so no mobo could do it, but even if they did, how would they know what sockets and the number of each socket to put on the mobo? Then you get into OS support, Win7 I believe is a limit of 2 CPU's, more than that and you need windows server, but even with 2 CPU support it has trouble with just different stepping of the same CPU, so you can just think of the problems with two CPU's that are not even the same architecture. Over all, the idea of ever having something like this work you should give up on, as stated above, if something like that was ever made it would probably cost far more than a whole new system.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,339
Ya, it just sounds like a nightmare trying to cover all the markets and combinations it would cost a fortune!
Not sure if "locked down" is the right word for it. On 1366, at least, the distinction was that the Core i7s had a single QPI link for the CPU to the Northbridge/RAM, and the Xeons had two QPI links, one for each CPU to the Northbridge/RAM, and one between the CPUs. Back in the FSB days you could run certain consumer-chips like the Celerons and P3s you're talking about in dual CPU setups (I had a dual P2-450 slot 1 Compaq workstation), but I think the modern chips (for Intel at least) are fundamentally different in how they handle multi-socket communications.
QX9775s were just Xeon CPUs branded as "Core 2 Extreme", using LGA 771 dual-CPU sockets instead of LGA 775 single-CPU sockets like every other Core 2 did. QX9775s were not interchangeable with any other Core 2 chips, and no other Core 2 chips worked in Skulltrail.
Firstly the ram on 1366 went direct to the CPUs, it didn't go via the chipset.
Secondly do you really beleive that intel did a completely seperate design with only 1 QPI link for the high end desktop market? I find that unlikely and consider it far more likely that the second QPI link was simply fused off for the sole purpose of segmenting the market.
The mainstream chips OTOH are a completely different design on a completely different socket.
One way to boost the computing power of a system is to use more than one microprocessor. Multi-processor (MP) motherboards are often used in servers and by power users. The most used MP motherboards are for two processors (dual CPUs). Make sure the CPUs run at the same voltage. Preferrably, they have the same stepping code
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Did you even bother reading the post?
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
It makes about as much sense as the OP.
The OP has a little knowledge, which makes him dangerous. The problem is the OP really knows nothing about the subject (gleaned from his various posts), so he doesn't know enough about the subject for anyone to explain to him why he can't just plug two CPUs together.
OP: Cache coherency would be your first and most serious problem - making two random processors talk to each other efficiently about their cache writes would be impossible. There are a million more issues - the complexity of this is why Intel HAS TO charge server makers top-dollar for multi-processing chip sets and CPUs. And Intel is not about to sell you their server chipsets CHEAP for consumers to use because all the server makers would buy the consumer trash and it would cut into Intel's profits.
You will have to research computer architecture if you really want to comprehend - otherwise you're just going to have to take our words for it.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
The OP's post made perfect sense, it seems many people only saw multi processor in the title and assumed they knew what it was about, making sense and being possible though are not the same. If it didn't, me and MrGuvernment (and your self for that matter) would not have been able to answer.
My guess is it was someone looking to make a first post (first day) or someone spamming to get post count for sale/trade forum, as his post was a direct copy off of directron's website as seen below.
http://www.directron.com/dual.html
what you do is simply buy an I7 and pop it into your I5 end of story. If you actually NEED multi CPU's you either drop more cash and buy the 6 core I7's instead of the 4 core I7's or drop the cash on the proper Xeons
take a good look at pricing fro the dual or quad xeon MOTHERBOARDS and you'll quickly find out why we dont have them in the mainstread. a system is so much pickier about EVERYTHING when you have multiple CPU sockets.
take a good look at pricing fro the dual or quad xeon MOTHERBOARDS and you'll quickly find out why we dont have them in the mainstread. a system is so much pickier about EVERYTHING when you have multiple CPU sockets.
Dual socket LGA 2011 would be a marvelous enthusiast platform if:
1. The 3+ gHz CPUs weren't so insanely expensive and/or they weren't completely locked down, such that you can't overclock the cheaper ones.
2. There were more workstation-centric boards available. There are 3 that I know of, so far, one Supermicro, one Asus, and one EVGA. The first 2 can be had in the $450-$500, the EVGA one is $750-$800, which is silly since it can't actually overclock Xeons...
I'd say both issues, are due to the fact that Intel basically has no competition at the high end at the moment. You can buy 2 socket Bulldozer workstation setups pretty cheap(C32 or G34). But, the AMD single threaded performance, even in the mid-high end, is no better than the $200-$300(1.8-2ish gHz) dual-socket capable e5-26xx chips. And for a workstation, you usually want/need good single threaded performance in addition to more cores, for when you can make use of them. It'd be nice if Piledriver can bring some more competition to bear, but I'm not holding my breath.