We all know Xeon processors can be Dual-CPU but what about Intel Core series?

[iRileyx]

This is like talking to a brick wall, smh.

[erdemalsirt]

I try to tell what i mean...

[Droidbot]

1 minute ago, erdemalsirt said:

Yeah maybe that "Server motherboard's Dual Socket" technology is not good for gaming but, i am sure Intel can develop new Processors like Dual-Socket-V2 (More different Dual-Socket technology... Not like Server motherboards... Completely different algorithms etc...)

Unless it's on die, like AMD's Infinity Fabric and CCX setup on Ryzen, it will still incur significant latency and add cost to the product.

[erdemalsirt]

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

Unless it's on die, like AMD's Infinity Fabric and CCX setup on Ryzen, it will still incur significant latency and add cost to the product.

I send a picture about what i mean... Do you understand that?

[lime_]

That is not how it works.

[erdemalsirt]

Just now, limewire said:

That is not how it works.

How not? Everything is possible for Intel. They have power, man...

[Virus__]

26 minutes ago, RKRiley said:

1151 is a consumer level range, I doubt they'll ever make dual socket boards for them, the demand just isn't there.

Well back in the days of Core 2 branding we had the Core 2 Extreme series, there was one 'enthusiast' gaming dual socket board that supported the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 which worked in an LGA 771 dual socket board called the Intel D5400XS or Skulltrail. I know they were classified as Xeons, but it was marketed towards gamers.

 

It was such a cool idea. From memory Bryan from TechYesCity picked one up not too long ago, but i'm pretty sure it's been giving him nothing but problems like those GTX 590's did.

[lime_]

Just now, erdemalsirt said:

How not? Everything is possible for Intel. They have power, man...

The latency between the two CPUs would be too high and performance would be awful.

[Combustible Lemon]

7 hours ago, erdemalsirt said:

If Intel made Dual-Socket 9th gen Intel core series motherboard, i expect that features:

 

Intel core i7 9700K (5 Ghz TurboBoost with 8 Cores, 16 Threads) (Just in theory that speed...)

 

Now... If we install Intel Core i7 9700K on a Dual-Socket (Supports 9th Intel Core series), then the performance can be DOUBLE if Intel really won that optimize work....

 

Two Intel Core i7 9700K = Showing on Windows 10 Task manager (10 Ghz with 16 Cores and, 32 Threads)

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this work. 

You don't get 10Ghz by adding CPUs, you don't get double the performance, a large part of the optimization needed isn't Intel part. non of this makes any sense.
Adding another CPU is like adding more cores to you single CPU. just further away, on a different substrate and connected by a slower bus. You still need the application support to utilize all cores, you adding latency compared to high core count single CPU (that's already exist), double the cost, complexity and power consumption. You'll run into space and heat limitation. 

Utterly useless.

[porina]

On consumer affordable multi-socket, I wouldn't say NO demand but it is rather niche. If you need more cores than mainstream, there is HEDT, and beyond that you move into server territory. The only reason I can see for a consumer version existing is PRICE. HCC HEDT is expensive. Multi-socket server is expensive. 

 

My first multi-socket system was the Abit BP6 with dual Celeron 366, overclocked to 550+, if I'm not showing my age too much here.

 

I can see some advantages to multi-socket consumer in the modern era, over single socket HCC. You spread the power and therefore heat requirements. Each socket now gets its own set of ram channels so bandwidth is less of a constraint. Also, two lower end CPUs of a given peak performance is usually cheaper than one CPU doing the equivalent. The mobo will get more complicated and expensive as a side effect though, offsetting that somewhat.

 

The other problem is with software. We're still having some trouble getting enough thread scaling. Multi-socket then makes the problem bigger as you'd ideally need NUMA aware software to get maximum performance out of it. As a parallel, look at how great SLI/Crossfire worked out in GPUs.

 

So basically, in some niches, it makes sense. But they're too niche. People who really need it, just have to cough up for the server platforms.

[Kamjam21xx]

49 minutes ago, Some Random Member said:

No Intel core series has to my knowledge never supported dual cpu. That is the expertize of the Xeons.

If they added all the xeon features to the cheaper consumer cpu's, who would buy the Xeons?

agreed. Nobody would be a xeon if they let you do that.

 

That said, i would love to have dual or quad threadripper 1950x cpus. Lol

[manikyath]

31 minutes ago, erdemalsirt said:

If gaming motherboards can have Dual-Socket, they works like that Algorithm: The Dual-Socket motherboard merge two CPU's and it make works like Single CPU... If that algorithm can be work, no any optimize problems... For sure...

you're so far off reality i cant even think of how to bring you back..

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

agreed. Nobody would be a xeon if they let you do that.

 

That said, i would love to have dual or quad threadripper 1950x cpus. Lol

Might aswell just get Epyc that supports dual a socket up to 64 cores

[asus killer]

48 minutes ago, erdemalsirt said:

merge two CPU's 

[Peskanova]

Dude you could make dual car engines with the same algorythm XDD. The problem with dual EVERYTHING but RAM  is that its not designed to do so, so bus speed from motherboard will be allways the worst part. If it could be made so easy like 1+1=2 it will be no i7 neither i5 since dual i3 is for your premise like 6-8 Ghz? Think it about for a second instead shitposting, think on a house, if you make dual houses it still has 2 kitchens dining rooms , its not designed for dual build and like mentioned before its easier to "glue" on the same die. 

 

Xeon processors dual build are meant to work for a heavy multi thread issues where it counts core per core performance, its like going for a drag race with a bus and call it that they need to build drag buses

[BarackOBatman]

3 hours ago, erdemalsirt said:

If gaming motherboards can have Dual-Socket, they works like that Algorithm: The Dual-Socket motherboard merge two CPU's and it make works like Single CPU... If that algorithm can be work, no any optimize problems... For sure...

Even if this was feasable, you'd still Still have an optimization problem.

 

 

[Kamjam21xx]

15 minutes ago, BarackOBatman said:

Even if this was feasable, you'd still Still have an optimization problem.

 

 

I feel like anything beyond 10 or 12 cores, you are going for high core count cpu rendering which lots of people would pay for duap or quad 16 core cpus. Including me.

[BarackOBatman]

1 minute ago, Kamjam21xx said:

I feel like anything beyond 10 or 12 cores, you are going for high core count cpu rendering which lots of people would pay for duap or quad 16 core cpus. Including me.

Not sure i follow what you are saying? Do you mean the OP has a good idea? or a pointless one cause TR and i9 already exist?

 

Also, i'm not sure if OP meant that the 2 CPUs add their cores together? or maybe he meant they add their clockspeed together instead?? Lol... some "Algorithm"

[Guest]

4 hours ago, erdemalsirt said:

If Intel made Dual-Socket 9th gen Intel core series motherboard, i expect that features:

 

Intel core i7 9700K (5 Ghz TurboBoost with 8 Cores, 16 Threads) (Just in theory that speed...)

 

Now... If we install Intel Core i7 9700K on a Dual-Socket (Supports 9th Intel Core series), then the performance can be DOUBLE if Intel really won that optimize work....

 

Two Intel Core i7 9700K = Showing on Windows 10 Task manager (10 Ghz with 16 Cores and, 32 Threads)

10 Ghz= no, do you even know what Gigahertz's are, or were you sleeping in the physics lessons?

then the performance can be DOUBLE  = The laws of physics still exist, so no.

16 Cores and, 32 Threads= Just get a threadripper 1950x,  2 cpus can never have the same performance as a single cpu, because they need to communicate with each other, and the further they are compared to each other the bigger the latency.

 

Also WHO NEEDS A DUAL SOCKET CONSUMER BOARD?

Gamers=  HELL No, that reduces perfomance

Renders = If you are so professional that a ryzen 8 core is too slow for you, then you have enough money to buy a threadripper or a i9, and if you are even more professional then you get the AMD EPIC dual socket 64 core beast, or Intel Xeon dual socket 56 core. Also if you are so big you also need ECC memory, which the consumer Intel's don't support.

There is no reason at all for a consumer dual socket to exist, no one needs it, there is no demand etc. 

 

Also your algorithm was like a kindergarten drawing. "If we add 2 cars together, then they go twice as fast, because this is how it works."

Or because you are a musician. "If i glue 2 guitars together then i can play twice as fast and it will be twice as load" (but you still have 2 hands)

[TheLaserCucumber]

4 hours ago, AskTJ said:

It will also require users to run the server edition of windows , because the consumer edition widows only supports 1 CPU. Pretty sure the server edition of windows doesn't have support for many applications.

That isn't right, Windows 10 Pro supports up to 2 sockets, though I don't know how much cores it can take. But a TR 1950 with its 32 threads runs under Win 10 Pro.

Also Windows Server 2016 uses the same Kernel as WIndows 10, so most if not all programs that run on Windows 10, should run on Windows Server 2016.

Quote

Also if you are so big you also need ECC memory, which the consumer Intel's don't support.

i3's and Pentiums do support ECC memory.

[Kamjam21xx]

25 minutes ago, Some Random Member said:

10 Ghz= no, do you even know what Gigahertz's are, or were you sleeping in the physics lessons?

then the performance can be DOUBLE  = The laws of physics still exist, so no.

16 Cores and, 32 Threads= Just get a threadripper 1950x,  2 cpus can never have the same performance as a single cpu, because they need to communicate with each other, and the further they are compared to each other the bigger the latency.

 

Also WHO NEEDS A DUAL SOCKET CONSUMER BOARD?

Gamers=  HELL No, that reduces perfomance

Renders = If you are so professional that a ryzen 8 core is too slow for you, then you have enough money to buy a threadripper or a i9, and if you are even more professional then you get the AMD EPIC dual socket 64 core beast, or Intel Xeon dual socket 56 core. Also if you are so big you also need ECC memory, which the consumer Intel's don't support.

There is no reason at all for a consumer dual socket to exist, no one needs it, there is no demand etc. 

 

Also your algorithm was like a kindergarten drawing. "If we add 2 cars together, then they go twice as fast, because this is how it works."

Or because you are a musician. "If i glue 2 guitars together then i can play twice as fast and it will be twice as load" (but you still have 2 hands)

Most any amount of rendering a 1950x isnt exactly "enough" id build a render farm with 512 cores if i could, but i dont have enough money.

[BarackOBatman]

27 minutes ago, Some Random Member said:

10 Ghz= no, do you even know what Gigahertz's are, or were you sleeping in the physics lessons?

then the performance can be DOUBLE  = The laws of physics still exist, so no.

16 Cores and, 32 Threads= Just get a threadripper 1950x,  2 cpus can never have the same performance as a single cpu, because they need to communicate with each other, and the further they are compared to each other the bigger the latency.

 

Also WHO NEEDS A DUAL SOCKET CONSUMER BOARD?

Gamers=  HELL No, that reduces perfomance

Renders = If you are so professional that a ryzen 8 core is too slow for you, then you have enough money to buy a threadripper or a i9, and if you are even more professional then you get the AMD EPIC dual socket 64 core beast, or Intel Xeon dual socket 56 core. Also if you are so big you also need ECC memory, which the consumer Intel's don't support.

There is no reason at all for a consumer dual socket to exist, no one needs it, there is no demand etc. 

 

Also your algorithm was like a kindergarten drawing. "If we add 2 cars together, then they go twice as fast, because this is how it works."

Or because you are a musician. "If i glue 2 guitars together then i can play twice as fast and it will be twice as load" (but you still have 2 hands)

For the record, i think the Consumer dual socket board is a pointless waste too.

 

The counter argument can be made for Enthusiasts who would want something like this. Like the guys who buy a Titan V + Xeon W-2195 to play fortnite. Or to take it a step further, guys who buy a double barreled Franken-gun (USA.) Or guys who buy super cars. It's not intend to be functional in the day-to-day. They do it cause they can. Its fun for them. Just to tinker with.

 

Then again, Intel or AMD isn't going to spend millions to develop dual socket consumer platforms just so enthusiasts can have some fun. Especially when there are better options REGARDLESS (i9/TR) 

[BarackOBatman]

3 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Most any amount of rendering a 1950x isnt exactly "enough" id build a render farm with 512 cores if i could, but i dont have enough money.

That's fine, but that already exists on a professional platform. Whats the point (from Intel's perspective) in introducing it to a consumer platform, especially if Intel can make boatloads more cash by keeping the technology limited to expensive professional platforms.

[Biggerboot]

Dual Socket motherboards don't really really provide synergy between the two processors.  It's more like having two motherboards glued together (that may not be technically correct but it's a better analogy than fusion).  I think this exists to save real-estate in server environments.

[Kamjam21xx]

19 minutes ago, BarackOBatman said:

That's fine, but that already exists on a professional platform. Whats the point (from Intel's perspective) in introducing it to a consumer platform, especially if Intel can make boatloads more cash by keeping the technology limited to expensive professional platforms.

I know, thats obviously what they intent to do and have been doing. 

 

I dont think i would ever buy a xeon, but Amd epyc is a good price in comparison.