• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

dual dual-/quad-core?

Of course there are boards capable of that, a far better question is this:
Are there any boards that will support dual quad-core without requiring buffered memory? eg something like AMD's 4x4 (no longer 4x4 but I forget the new name) that will support quad core as well.
 
I have no idea, but I know what you want has been do-able for years, if you want a server. I really don't think there's mainstream dual-socket boards, at all, but I could be wrong, especially with socket 939 and AM2.
 
Originally posted by: Roguestar
...what on earth for??
Click to expand...

Because it's neat seeing 8 cpu's in the task manager! 😀

Can you say 8 instances of DVD shrink to iSCSI SAN? 8 movies in 10 minutes! Arrrrr! 😉

A four socket Xeon MP board with four quad core Xeons for 16 discrete cores sounds interesting. The task manager now looks like a graphic EQ. :laugh:
 
But if you get all your computing and ripping and encoding and whatnot done in 10 minutes, you'll have to go do something constructive! 😱
 
Quad core lower end xeons are out, you could go with a pair of 5320s and a Tyan or Supermicro 5000x board. I'd recommend the X7DA8 if you're looking to buy one today. Personally, I'm waiting for the 5355s to be released before upgrading my 5160s.

16 Processes are more fun then 8.
 
I think I read an article in Maximum PC that said mobos for 8 quads would be coming out in 2007 to support Intel and AMD. I might have misread it though, but that's what I recall.
 
Originally posted by: Boyo
I think I read an article in Maximum PC that said mobos for 8 quads would be coming out in 2007 to support Intel and AMD. I might have misread it though, but that's what I recall.
Click to expand...

they have been out for years, just not for the "desktop market" or anything even remotely considered desktop. a buddy of mine does programming and network stuff and the machines that they have are either 8 or 16 cores with like 8-16GB of ram, with a 18drive scsi array, obviously not running windows but it does the part for the number crunching that they need.
 
Go for the AMD 4x4 setup and upgrade when they come out with quad cores? I thought you could get a mobo for that right now, though it was $250-300.
 
You could get one of these: Text

Grab some opteron 800 series dual core procs, and you have 8 cores. Keep in mind you need special chassis, fans, heatsinks, psu's and memory as well, but this will work.
 
Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Originally posted by: Roguestar
...what on earth for??
Click to expand...

Because it's neat seeing 8 cpu's in the task manager! 😀

Can you say 8 instances of DVD shrink to iSCSI SAN? 8 movies in 10 minutes! Arrrrr! 😉

A four socket Xeon MP board with four quad core Xeons for 16 discrete cores sounds interesting. The task manager now looks like a graphic EQ. :laugh:
Click to expand...


I didn't know that Xeons had multiple cores these days.

What motherboard and CPU combination was in that JPEG?
 
Obviously an AMD system so probably 8xx series dual core opterons...4 of them to be 8 cores....

Problem is the opterons cannot compete with the Core 2 architecture...

I would get a dual socket INtel motherboard and get your hands on the 4 core xeons...they will be faster then the AMD setup but will require Fdimm memory I believe...
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Obviously an AMD system so probably 8xx series dual core opterons...4 of them to be 8 cores....

Problem is the opterons cannot compete with the Core 2 architecture...

I would get a dual socket INtel motherboard and get your hands on the 4 core xeons...they will be faster then the AMD setup but will require Fdimm memory I believe...
Click to expand...

This is true. The dual-core and quad-core Woodcrest and Clovertown processors are much faster than the AMD equivalent CPUs in the 2-socket space (as much as 50% performance difference). However, these processors (51xx and 53xx) are limited to dual CPU configurations.

If you want more physical CPUs, 4 or 8 CPU, then there are only dual-core CPUs from AMD and Intel. In this space, the AMD CPUs are the better choice. I think Intel is supposed to release Tigerton next year which will finally bring the Core technology to the 4-socket and 8-socket platforms.
 
Lemme say this. I have 2 Xeon 5140's and I have Never NEVER maxed out even 3 cores, no matter how hard I try. You do not need 8 cores. 4 is more than plenty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top