The 1st boards were a real mother F to wire. Hence mother board. BUT they actually were called backplane boards. Linus is youngster. I bet he has only seen magnetic core RAM in museum.
There's an online store in the UK that sells a crazy computer that is 2 PCs in one tower and costs £30,000. They can be made to work together I guess. Actually a good store, they just sell some crazy stuff by someone apparently famous in the overclocking scene.
When was the last time it was realistic to see a single core CPU, outside of a phone at least? A 65 nm Sempron from 2009-10? Even that is stretching it. I mean the parts existed but I'm pretty sure I've never seen a Sempron past the Athlon XP era, maybe early on in the Athlon64 era, before the Core 2. On the Intel side I think the Core 2 Solo and Conroe-L Celerons from 2007 were their last single core parts, and I think both of these were basically netbook exclusives.
@@dycedargselderbrother5353 I'd say that since the introduction of Intel's Core architecture, it's not common to see single-core CPUs in computers. Give it a bit of leeway and I'd say 2006/2007 is the time where they stopped being common?
Back in 2001 I've bought a dual CPU system (MSI 694D Pro Dual Socket-370 Apollo Pro133A ATX, 2* Pentium III 800MHz), which was an absolute beast at the time. I was running Multiple Game Servers at a LAN-Event, listening to Winamp while gaming Counter Strike at perfect framerates. PC just didn't want to slow down a bit.
Wow, How did I possibly not know about this motherboard, back then I used MSI almost exclusively *Except* for my ABit BP6 (Dual 370 system using 500mhz Celerons) and slightly later an ABit VP6 using two 1ghz Pentium III's. The speed was insane, as long as you used Windows 2000 as 98/ME [BSD also, but not Linux] didn't support SMP. I'm pretty positive most the speed gain was from most software only capable of using one CPU at a time, occasional software lockups that would become transparent, and similarly not having to distribute the cpu's resources across twice as many processes/threads/whatever. The machines truly seemed 10x or faster in many cases.
Ahh, this takes me back to the Abit BP6 dual Celeron system I had in college. My flatmates and I used it as a server for file sharing, Quake/TF game servers, etc. Good times!
I have fond memories of my dual celeron pc back in the late 90's at HP research labs...Used to run Windows NT to make use of the dual CPUs ....AHH the good 'slow' old days.
@@fastestmane7324 Here's the song: th-cam.com/video/YnopHCL1Jk8/w-d-xo.html It's also called the "numa numa song" because of the chorus. NUMA in computing stands for Non-Uniform Memory Access. Due to the nature of multiple CPU architectures, typically each CPU has its own memory bank, and there is a substantially latency hit when accessing memory locations that are physially located on the other CPU's memory bank (typically accessed via some bus or crossbar).
Many arcadeboards used dual cpus and that scaled really well on Segas arcade for example (no pun intended since they were the masters of 2d scaling sprites). sega genesis used 2 cpus, where one of the cpus was in charge of the music.. the ps2 used a ps1 cpu also for handling io and backwards compability.. list goes on. if you dont make software to take advantage of extra cpus, you will not see great benefit.
Not a good answer... there are other operating systems out there that have run on multiple CPUs for decades. Windows ran fine on multi CPU machines, but only if software was written well enough to take advantage.
The real simple answer is that programs often share memory space and memory can only be written to by one core/CPU at a time. This is why hyperthreading programs is *really* hard as the split process *cannot* write to memory used by the main loop of the program. So generally hyperthreading is programmed as single purpose tasks that perform one thing and then nothing else.
And having two Threadripper sockets would require a MASSIVE motherboard, not just to fit the sockets, but also to take full advantage of the PCI-E lanes.
This could help in laptops, a 5-10W CPU for normal processes and a high power CPU + dGPU for heavy processes. It'll help conserve power during normal usage while ensuring power when needed
I've thought about getting a dual socket board to make my own "bigLITTLE" style architecture. One socket with as many cores as possible and the other with as high a clock speed as possible
Unless you're extremely well versed in programming x86 and can modify not only the OS but the BIOS to make it functional, that won't work. They all require matched CPUs.
What would be cool with 2 CPUs is to be able to choose what CPU a program uses I.e run a game that can't use many cores on your better low core CPU and have a high core count CPU for work that can use lots of cores
I think that was one of the few benefits gamer actually had. Run the OS and most stuff on the multi core CPU that clocked 2 to 3 GHz (CPU slot 1). and on CPU slot 2 Run a singel core 4+GHz CPU for games that could only use one core example Dwarf fortress.
There is a benefit in having dedicated sockets for your CPUs: Especially Threadripper suffers from its design. They put 8 dies on one package that then has to share all its memory bandwidth. In a multiple socket build each CPU gets their own dedicated memory and bandwidth. In a threadripper 3990X 16 cores share one memory channel. If you had two 32 core systems or 4 16 core systems with 4 channels each you could get way more performance in tasks that don't require shared memory like virtualisation.
And this goes back to at least Westmere. Back in the day, one of the awesome things that the Dell Precision T5500 had in it was the second CPU riser functionally made the system parallel triple channel memory, so you could get some absolutely absurd memory bandwidth for the time (like ~60GB/s theoretical or something) to pair with the then-ludicrously-powerful X5680 and X5690.
@@NextMerckx Yep, lol I still like to think the X5690 is ludicrously powerful even at $200 for a pair. My Mac Pro 5,1 and R610 Server does more than keep up.. even a decade later!
This is why a database server we bought around 2015 was equipped with two 12/24 Xeons. For database servers, memory bandwidth is a real bottleneck (we saturated two fiber channel links when running queries to give an idea of the amount of data we were sorting, and we had nearly 1TB in memory)
In my industry, that latency between multiple CPUs is a big pain in the ass and is the cause of many bugs even after thousands of hours for verification testing. Some odd ass specific conditions can be in place and cause the software to have unintended consequences.
My first dual processor machine was a pentium pro, this goes wayyyyyyy back as the man says. One of the main advantages of multi cpu systems in older servers is that each cpu has it's own memory management, so more CPUs = more memory. Some particularly big, expensive and fully optioned servers had insane amounts of memory.
I owned 2, was amazing as couldn't get a single cpu to do 1ghz back then. Alas they came out around the bad cap time, so the period of dead caps plagued.
Still have mine! Remember playing CS beta 6.5 while simultaneously unpacking some files with winrar, and playing music with winamp. Good times =) Had it as my main rig until the fall of 2008
being a complete novice who is trying to start a career as a digital designer working adobe products, it's really helpful having videos like this that gets to the point and explains it in a way i can understand. i really need to understand this stuff and i cant pause a video every other minute to look up terms and acronyms. thanks for breaking it down in a way that a guy who didn't get his first email address until applying for college could understand.
i've been running a dual cpu setup for a few years now (asus z8na-d6, dual xeon x5675) and it handles anything i throw at it. i was aware that it wouldnt double my performance, but the whole point of the build was to play new games at a price comparable to a new games console.
Two CPUs in one PC? Linus: "These enthusiasts still remain a tiny minority of users" Me : Happily in the "tiny minority of users" running dual Xeon e5-2697 v2 (24 core 48 thread) in my Unraid server that I got on the cheap.
I had a moment of pure nostalgia when he mentioned the AMD Quad FX. I opted into the system in a weird sense of future proofing myself into a future 8 core system. The first FX-70 CPUs were supposed to be placeholders for the eventual Phenom-style chips with 4 cores each for one of the earliest 8 core setups available...but the FX line was cancelled and I was left with an existing system with a dead end architecture, and a cooling fan setup that reminded me of a passenger jet spooling up on the runway to take off. I think I learned a lesson from that...trying for bleeding edge runs the risk of getting cut, in more then one sense of the term.
Back in the early 2k, I was rocking a dual Super sparc Sun workstation, and while the speed of each core was ridiculous, CPU cache and SMP combined with a much faster I/O bus made for a wonderfully smooth obsolyte machine to work on.
An important fact from my side : Computers with 1 CPU perform multiprogramming, that means, only one program can run on the processor at any instant. Computers with multiple CPUs perform both multiprogramming and multiprocessing (multiprocessing means multiple programs run simultaneously at any instant, on the different processors).
I’m the guy that was in charge of building all those dual CPU Certified Data PC’s way back when. We were even filmed and on the news for doing it. I have the clip on VHS here somewhere... Thanks for the memories! Cheers.
@@natevelar that may be true for some scenarios like gaming and basic use like word processing, but it's ignorant to say that it's useless to have multiple CPUs. For situations like CAD, rendering or scientific workloads (which is also something people do) then the extra cores speed those up massively. Why do you think servers and workstations typically have multiple CPUs? If it didn't have any benefits, why would motherboard manufacturers even bother?
@@danwhite3224 I'm currently using an older Z400 hp server with a dedicated GPU...looking at a G4 HP server with a high scoring Xeon with two cpus. I buy them for the dependablitiy and stability...and am always unsure what advantages I will have when I move to two cpus.
The diminishing returns is a much greater problem for Windows compared to other O/S such as Solaris. Sun had SPARC processors with 128 threads per CPU in the late 00's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_T1 Today, the M8 has 256 threads per cpu and the T8-4 system has 4 SPARC M8 processors for 1024 threads. Solaris scaled far better than Windows when it came to multiple threads. Floating point performance wasn't as good. But moving large amounts of data, processing big datasets etc was short work for SPARC based machines. Today, Sun/Oracle do the same work with connected servers running XEON processors. Provides some cost savings as well as multiple systems running so the loss of any one system has a far smaller impact compared to one large instance going down. 1U servers running Oracle Enterprise Linux with 1.5TB of RAM to do database "stuff."
It would be interesting to see if older dual CPU efforts could possibly be affordable and practical or just in general perform well for todays standards. Maybe thats an LTT video.
DX was effectually two SX CPUs in one package, thats why the DX ones rocked at the time. 1.5 clock cycles per instruction cycle due to pipelines. along came the Pentium One and 1.5 instructions per clock cycle. the DX4-120 from Cyrix was just faster than the Pentium 75s. P90s and up left the DX 486 world behind. the modern era of 21st century computing had begun.
Had a dual celeron 300a overclocked to 450mhz. Ran like a dream and wasn't too expensive because the celeron was a consumer grade chip that wasn't supposed to be used in SMP mode.
I built a system around the Asus L1N64-SLI board when that came out, having 4 CPU cores was just amazing to brag about, not that much I did ever made use of them that is. That board is framed on my wall now, along with a few of the more interesting boards I've had over the years.
Ah, the memories of my first build ever, a dual Pentium III 1 Ghz system on an Abit VP6 motherboard... Such a rugged system, so much raw power, and I was able to make use of it then when I was doing graphic design work with Adobe or when playing Quake 3 instagib (/com_maxfps 0, /smp 1). Hell, I could play the game on one CPU and run a dedicated server on the other, and I DID one day just for fun! One huge advantage I remember was that my PC never slowed down when running tons of programs, which was especially helpful then with the sea of spyware start-up apps that would bring pedestrian systems to their knees. Windows 2000/XP Pro were so good at managing workloads between the CPUs that anything less than SETI@home would barely be a hiccup, and buffer under-run when burning CDs became a thing of the past. Though in contrast to the video I don't remember it being that expensive at all. There was the second CPU, of course, but that was only another ~$210, the mobo was only a little more expensive than other boards, I didn't try to max out the RAM, I had the usual 2 HHD, CD burner, a GeForce2 GTS/Pro I got for dirt cheap on ebay, it was perfectly reasonable and serviceable until it was replaced by a Pentium 4C. Maybe there were more boards then that used registered/ECC RAM and had SCSI controllers natively, cuz the VP6 was just a regular board with 2 CPU sockets and I don't think I paid anymore than $125 at most. Tho the mobo was a victim of the capacitor plague, it was still just within warranty by 2 months, got it all fixed up and it was retired to the role of LAN party server for whatever we wanted, usually counter-strike, UT2K4, Quake 3, etc. A friend of mine still has it. Maybe I'll dust it off and see if it still works. No idea what I could possibly use it for, even 2 Pentium IIIs at 1 Ghz apiece will barely run anything modern.
1:10 Yeah... single-core. But did you notice the massive 33 MHz? I had one of those. Upped to a Pentium 120 MHz. Followed by AMD K6, K6-2 & K6-3 (300 MHz - 350 MHz - 450 MHz - 500 MHz) Which was then followed by the Pentium 4, 2.4 GHz WITH HT(!!!!) I miss those days.
That's nothing. My first 3 computers were all 8 bit, a 3.5Mhz Z80 and then two with 1.7Mhz 6502 processors. 1K, 16K and 64K of RAM respectively. The good old days. 😁
The good thing about multi-CPU systems is that they were pretty much future-proof. I'm still using an OC dual-Xeon system (two 6-core CPUs at 4.33GHz) on EVGA SR-2 (MB and CPUs are from 2010) together with a 1080 GTX, and it holds up great at 1440p. This configuration saved me at least one generation of upgrades, so investing in it back then might have been a really good choice. I wouldn't go for it today though.
Techquickie ideas: 1) Quick summary of who in the tech industry is pushing the most innovation and invention. 2) Discussion of the limitations and benefits of bluetooth (why is it so good sometimes, so janky others?). 3) Discussion of the ways in which more data can be sent along higher frequencies of wifi. 4) Discussion of wireless interference. 5) Discussion of the dangers of USB-C charging (how it draws more power and can be dangerous to certain products). 6) Discussion of how to know which chargers are safe for which peripherals! (more and more of my usb charging devices are coming without instructions on power charging limitations, and no wall wart included, usually only a usb cable) 7) Discussion of powered vs unpowered usb hubs, and how to get a powered usb hub that won't damage your devices.
Used to have a Dual Pentium 200 and a Dual Pentium III-450. (The motherboards and processors still exist somewhere at my dad's place.) Those were the days. Used to run Windows NT and Linux and FreeBSD with SMP.
Wait, shouldn't it technically be possible to make a multi-CPU motherboard for Zen 2? I mean, they basically do already do that with the whole chiplet design anyway, don't they?
of course it's technically possible, just like it's technically possible for intel to enable HT and ECC across their entire lineup, and for nvidia to enable sr-iov on the 3070. but unlike those simple software tweaks, the market for dual socket motherboards for consumer CPUs would be even less extant than the market for SLI.
I totally agree with both of you, there's no way they're ever gonna do it, and frankly, there's no reason why they would or should, my comment was totally just for argument's sake haha... Though, it is really funny to me to see how savvy and how focussed on doing it themselves parts of the tech community are, yet you don't really hear of any homemade motherboards (or graphic card PCBs)... which I guess just goes to show how hard it is to do and how little pay-off there could be, and thus how little the effort would pay out.
Cost. Including another socket, extra board real estate, and all the necessary wiring will be either extremely difficult, expensive, restrictive, or all of the above. Not to mention you have to throw in an extra cooler. At this point you might as well just buy a single CPU with a higher core count. Of course, if you've already got 128 cores or something, yeah, dual or quad sockets do make sense. And yes, these boards already exist.
@@thomas16green I had the same idea of plugging 2 3600s together as well, but soon came to realize that I might as well buy a 3900X and not deal with a lot of problems :D It really only makes sense if there are no bigger CPUs to buy and you *really* need more processing power. And that's how you end up with huge racks of HPC processors :P
If you looking for short answer. Data center technician here. All of our servers have dual cpus. They are not there to combine power, but for two purposes: 1. If one fails the other kicks in 2. Each one has a purpose different from the other one ie two customers could use same host.
I had one of the first dual CPU consumer platforms back in the day, the legendary Abit BP6 with two Celeron chips. The problem was none of the consumer operating systems of the day supported more than one CPU, so I've had to compile a Linux kernel which added SMP support and also dual-boot into Windows NT for my Windows software. On top of that, device drivers back then weren't really designed to be thread-safe, so I remember frequent lock-ups with Creative's sound drivers. It was really a lot more trouble than what it's worth. When Windows 2000 Pro came out, that was actually a pleasant and performant operating system which supported dual processors and ran many popular games of the day at a decent speed, such as Quake 3, which in itself was one of the few games that supported dual processors. Happy days. Compatibility wasn't 100% though, so I still had to keep a Win98SE partition around for many games.
I ran a dual Pentium 3 733 for a few years in the early 2000's. Rocked Windows NT, 2000, and XP. Not for playing games, for game development when we had to process art assets ahead of time when making local builds. Ran multi cpu after than until eventually we got multi core machines standard off the shelf.
I had the pleasure of a Dell dual Xeon workstation bought in 2004. No one else coded multithreaded like I was doing, because I had my machine to run the game loop at 240fps.
BBC Micro could have a second processor and that machine dates to 1981, also the processor could be a different type. Archimedes machines had a risc processor and could have a second 486/586 processor installed to allow window to run at the same time.
Sun and SGI of course had multiple CPU workstations ages before either. Was a time when they were the some of the only option if you needed to do proper workstation tasks and needed an OS optimised for it. Oh how things have changed.
That kind-of happens with Windows now. Windows may try to stack as many small programs onto a single core when the cores are not loaded to take advantage of turbo boost. It's very hard to use exactly 100% of a CPU. With just a 2nd core, you almost always will have at least a tiny bit of CPU power to keep things running more skookum. I think the PS4 also did what you mentioned. There's a mini OS on an ARM processor or something to help run stuff in the background. It led to some weird things like a hard drive running off a USB bus. Seriously... check out the PS4 hack video.
I used to have a Dual Pentium 133 MHz with 64Mb memory running on a HX chipset. The best part was being able to have the ability to launch a game on specific one CPU, while the rest of Windows 2000 ran on the other. Back in the days that was the best performance I could squeeze out of any computer.
Well, I love my Dual Xeon E5v2 setup. Even though it demands a lot of care 😅 I have my handfull of favoured applications that do scale with cores as well as with frequency. Not to mention my BIONC workloads😄 I hope I can love my new dual Platinum 8124M setup as well.... once I got my 12 DIMMs.
You can put as many as you like but if your board only takes one they are just going to rattle around.
Unless you use thermal paste to strap them in
@@nickelwrangler446 Or some tweezers ;)
@@adrianlewis2536 and a swiss knife
@@Petar321_GT Don't forget the allen wrench
@@LillaVya 😂😂
The fact that it's called a MOTHERboard makes the child fighting analogy so much better
MooooooooOoOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!1
I loved it!
The 1st boards were a real mother F to wire. Hence mother board. BUT they actually were called backplane boards. Linus is youngster. I bet he has only seen magnetic core RAM in museum.
Yes it did.
@@david_4344 ßsßee
It's like having two wives in one house
one is cookin and the other is cleanin the godayum house
nah, two wives in two houses 🤦♂️
Why do you sound like indian?
(⊙_◎)Nice to meet you , again !
Yes, it sounds good in theory, but the added b*tching just isn't worth it!
It's always "Two CPUs in one Board"
It's never "Two Boards in one CPU"
They always ask how is the cpu, not why is the cpu
Yes this is so sad
@@yen5625 to make computers work
"Two cups, one girl" Just doesn't sound the same.
No, we've done that before as well. That's your 60's mainframe, time-sharing style setup.
Next project: build 2 entire computers in a single tower case and make them work together
There are quad sockets server boards look it up
they already did that
@@akabiscuitwaffle where? Can you either send the link or title?
@@akabiscuitwaffle nvm I got it.
but it was not, what I wanted, but oh well
There's an online store in the UK that sells a crazy computer that is 2 PCs in one tower and costs £30,000. They can be made to work together I guess.
Actually a good store, they just sell some crazy stuff by someone apparently famous in the overclocking scene.
It WAS long ago that single-core was common.
You're just old, Linus.
We all are.
Oof is this linus i thought this is another person channel
Now THATS a lot of DAMAGE! SOOOOO MANY BENT PINS!!!!!
When was the last time it was realistic to see a single core CPU, outside of a phone at least? A 65 nm Sempron from 2009-10? Even that is stretching it. I mean the parts existed but I'm pretty sure I've never seen a Sempron past the Athlon XP era, maybe early on in the Athlon64 era, before the Core 2. On the Intel side I think the Core 2 Solo and Conroe-L Celerons from 2007 were their last single core parts, and I think both of these were basically netbook exclusives.
rad
@@dycedargselderbrother5353 I'd say that since the introduction of Intel's Core architecture, it's not common to see single-core CPUs in computers. Give it a bit of leeway and I'd say 2006/2007 is the time where they stopped being common?
Instructions unclear, thermalpasted 2 CPUs together
your supposed to put one half of a cpu into half the socket and the other half in the other half of the socket
@@peril8175 then you put the other halves onto the fans, for extra cooling
@@unity__3829 how could i forget about such an important step
Mmmm s'mores
@@_CinnamonKitty ok good on
"it wasn't that long ago that just single core cpus were the norm"
Buddy that was over a decade and a half ago.
Uummm.... Is.... Is it a long time? :|
@@bakhvainasaridze32 In the world of computing it's centuries at best. There has to be some "dog years" translation for computers
its bout 45 years in 'computer years'
Still doesn't feel like long ago
Me sitting with dual core pentium
Back in 2001 I've bought a dual CPU system (MSI 694D Pro Dual Socket-370 Apollo Pro133A ATX, 2* Pentium III 800MHz), which was an absolute beast at the time. I was running Multiple Game Servers at a LAN-Event, listening to Winamp while gaming Counter Strike at perfect framerates. PC just didn't want to slow down a bit.
Wow, How did I possibly not know about this motherboard, back then I used MSI almost exclusively *Except* for my ABit BP6 (Dual 370 system using 500mhz Celerons) and slightly later an ABit VP6 using two 1ghz Pentium III's. The speed was insane, as long as you used Windows 2000 as 98/ME [BSD also, but not Linux] didn't support SMP. I'm pretty positive most the speed gain was from most software only capable of using one CPU at a time, occasional software lockups that would become transparent, and similarly not having to distribute the cpu's resources across twice as many processes/threads/whatever. The machines truly seemed 10x or faster in many cases.
Ahh, this takes me back to the Abit BP6 dual Celeron system I had in college. My flatmates and I used it as a server for file sharing, Quake/TF game servers, etc. Good times!
What a computing stud I was with my Abit BP6 dual CPU Linux box. Overclocked!
Big Iron!
Me having a Intel dual core 2 duo CPU and they have been used for Minecraft server and they still running today since 2015
2040: Do you need a CPU in your PC?
2040: 30cm*30cm processor.
Nvidia's new 4000 series just takes the position of your cpu
Does a CPU trace rays?
@@williamhansen9456 There's nothing stopping it from doing it
Imagine motherboards with integrated CPUs and GPUs..
I always cram two CPU's in my motherboard whether it likes it or not... Sometimes more.
Yeah and if you need more ram just dowload it. Ofc download the rgb versions, because we all know that more rgb means more performance
@@muddtheboss415 don't forget to download a mouse
don't forget to install monitor.exe
don't forget to delete system32, it stops your rgb from giving your ram more fps
Also download a soundcard so you can enjoy 3d sound on your games
Ofcourse dont forget the rgb version with speakers
This feels like a "Two cooks running the kitchen" scenario.
Two dads, one grill
Like a 3-some🤔? Not the way you pictured it in your head?
Generally in a respect 5 star restaurants there's always more than one.
@@cris4529
I believe this was a reference to the saying:
"too many cooks spoil the broth"
I just read cocks. I pictured them running in the kitchen. Then I pictured the birds, also running in the kitchen
Hey, you should collab with Linus Tech Tips!
I'm gonna have to quote the legendary Jedi Battle master here and say "You're joking, right?"
@soinu foig I think you responded to the wrong comment
Jack w/rooosh
@@FooFooANIMATIONS h/rwwwwwwwwos
Na bro stop joking,tho i would like to see him doa collab eith LTT
Linus: I'm glad that you asked..
No linus, at this point you pop up every time i scroll down youtube and grace me knowledge I don't even know i need.
Just duct tape the second CPU to the one you're actually using and use it as a heat sink.
sometimes my genius is... it's almost frightening
*thermal PASTE
@@suntzu1409 yes, attach the heat sink CPU to the other CPU with thermal paste.
"Can't make your neighbors more upset than they already are "
:D
Just loved it
Those beats were sick! What song was that?
Sounds like a challenge to me.
I have fond memories of my dual celeron pc back in the late 90's at HP research labs...Used to run Windows NT to make use of the dual CPUs ....AHH the good 'slow' old days.
The slow days that somehow were faster. Modern software is bloat.
i used dual pentium pros back in the day with Windows NT. that was a great computer. could even game on it lol :)
The main benefit of two CPUs is the increased RAM that you can install, as well as potentially more PCIe lanes depending on the chipset.
POV: trying to talk to the salesperson at the computer section 0:00
I remember in the days of single core cpus - a dual cpu system was my dream. SMP 🤤
"Why do multiple CPUs not scale well?"
*Dragostea Din Tei plays in the background*
I understood that reference! [surprised cap in the background]
I don't understand. Can you please explain it
@@fastestmane7324 Here's the song: th-cam.com/video/YnopHCL1Jk8/w-d-xo.html
It's also called the "numa numa song" because of the chorus.
NUMA in computing stands for Non-Uniform Memory Access. Due to the nature of multiple CPU architectures, typically each CPU has its own memory bank, and there is a substantially latency hit when accessing memory locations that are physially located on the other CPU's memory bank (typically accessed via some bus or crossbar).
I think that might be the most obscure reference I have ever seen
Many arcadeboards used dual cpus and that scaled really well on Segas arcade for example (no pun intended since they were the masters of 2d scaling sprites). sega genesis used 2 cpus, where one of the cpus was in charge of the music.. the ps2 used a ps1 cpu also for handling io and backwards compability.. list goes on. if you dont make software to take advantage of extra cpus, you will not see great benefit.
Simple answer: The Windows scheduler can only barely handle existing single socket Threadripper platforms as it is.
Not a good answer... there are other operating systems out there that have run on multiple CPUs for decades. Windows ran fine on multi CPU machines, but only if software was written well enough to take advantage.
The real simple answer is that programs often share memory space and memory can only be written to by one core/CPU at a time. This is why hyperthreading programs is *really* hard as the split process *cannot* write to memory used by the main loop of the program. So generally hyperthreading is programmed as single purpose tasks that perform one thing and then nothing else.
And having two Threadripper sockets would require a MASSIVE motherboard, not just to fit the sockets, but also to take full advantage of the PCI-E lanes.
@@rez-theruneman It's time to have PCIE x32 speed slots because why not as well
@@FMHikari The day that becomes a thing will be exciting.
This could help in laptops, a 5-10W CPU for normal processes and a high power CPU + dGPU for heavy processes. It'll help conserve power during normal usage while ensuring power when needed
I've thought about getting a dual socket board to make my own "bigLITTLE" style architecture. One socket with as many cores as possible and the other with as high a clock speed as possible
Dual socket motherboards generally don't support having different CPU models installed.
Sounds like what Intel is trying to do with their next generation hybrid mobile chips
Unless you're extremely well versed in programming x86 and can modify not only the OS but the BIOS to make it functional, that won't work. They all require matched CPUs.
@referral madness It wouldn't bottleneck, but as the other guy said, if he could modify the OS and BIOS, it would perfectly
a computer with a CPU and GPU pretty much is a large scale bigLITTLE
What would be cool with 2 CPUs is to be able to choose what CPU a program uses I.e run a game that can't use many cores on your better low core CPU and have a high core count CPU for work that can use lots of cores
thats basically what intel ended up doing with their p core e core cpus, except on a single cpu die.
I think that was one of the few benefits gamer actually had.
Run the OS and most stuff on the multi core CPU that clocked 2 to 3 GHz (CPU slot 1).
and on CPU slot 2 Run a singel core 4+GHz CPU for games that could only use one core example Dwarf fortress.
There is a benefit in having dedicated sockets for your CPUs:
Especially Threadripper suffers from its design. They put 8 dies on one package that then has to share all its memory bandwidth. In a multiple socket build each CPU gets their own dedicated memory and bandwidth. In a threadripper 3990X 16 cores share one memory channel. If you had two 32 core systems or 4 16 core systems with 4 channels each you could get way more performance in tasks that don't require shared memory like virtualisation.
And this goes back to at least Westmere. Back in the day, one of the awesome things that the Dell Precision T5500 had in it was the second CPU riser functionally made the system parallel triple channel memory, so you could get some absolutely absurd memory bandwidth for the time (like ~60GB/s theoretical or something) to pair with the then-ludicrously-powerful X5680 and X5690.
@@NextMerckx Yep, lol I still like to think the X5690 is ludicrously powerful even at $200 for a pair. My Mac Pro 5,1 and R610 Server does more than keep up.. even a decade later!
This is why a database server we bought around 2015 was equipped with two 12/24 Xeons. For database servers, memory bandwidth is a real bottleneck (we saturated two fiber channel links when running queries to give an idea of the amount of data we were sorting, and we had nearly 1TB in memory)
This is why solutions like AMD's 3D-Cache will become more and more a "need" outside of gaming, like in Database Servers.
In my industry, that latency between multiple CPUs is a big pain in the ass and is the cause of many bugs even after thousands of hours for verification testing. Some odd ass specific conditions can be in place and cause the software to have unintended consequences.
My first dual processor machine was a pentium pro, this goes wayyyyyyy back as the man says. One of the main advantages of multi cpu systems in older servers is that each cpu has it's own memory management, so more CPUs = more memory. Some particularly big, expensive and fully optioned servers had insane amounts of memory.
ahhh this brings me back to a dual celeron build crushing every Quake 3-built system wayyy back in 2000 :))
Nobody:
Linus: I am glad you asked..
Well you did click on the video
You forgot about the Abit BP6, paired with two Celeron 366's overclocked to 550+? One of the best cost-to-performance deals in history.
Or it's younger brother the Abit VP6 hothardware.com/reviews/abits-vp6-via-apollo-pro-133a-dualcpu-motherboard
dfarq.homeip.net/abit-bp6-in-memoriam/
I owned 2, was amazing as couldn't get a single cpu to do 1ghz back then. Alas they came out around the bad cap time, so the period of dead caps plagued.
Yes! I don't know how you could talk about dual socket platforms and NOT mention Abit's BP6.
Still have mine! Remember playing CS beta 6.5 while simultaneously unpacking some files with winrar, and playing music with winamp. Good times =) Had it as my main rig until the fall of 2008
being a complete novice who is trying to start a career as a digital designer working adobe products, it's really helpful having videos like this that gets to the point and explains it in a way i can understand. i really need to understand this stuff and i cant pause a video every other minute to look up terms and acronyms. thanks for breaking it down in a way that a guy who didn't get his first email address until applying for college could understand.
i've been running a dual cpu setup for a few years now (asus z8na-d6, dual xeon x5675) and it handles anything i throw at it. i was aware that it wouldnt double my performance, but the whole point of the build was to play new games at a price comparable to a new games console.
Two CPUs in one PC?
Linus: "These enthusiasts still remain a tiny minority of users"
Me : Happily in the "tiny minority of users" running dual Xeon e5-2697 v2 (24 core 48 thread) in my Unraid server that I got on the cheap.
Darth Plaguerism .... nice! :)
Server intercourse? Reese's peanut buttermilk, and the usa is the best TH-camr in history! And you can fight me on that! 😡😡😡😡
Or my Lenovo Thinkstation D30 I still daily drive.
@RITA , I LOVE SЕХ , WANT SЕХ !!! OPEN MY CANAL !!! what the hell?
@@DrLifeGamer it's a bot
I had a moment of pure nostalgia when he mentioned the AMD Quad FX. I opted into the system in a weird sense of future proofing myself into a future 8 core system. The first FX-70 CPUs were supposed to be placeholders for the eventual Phenom-style chips with 4 cores each for one of the earliest 8 core setups available...but the FX line was cancelled and I was left with an existing system with a dead end architecture, and a cooling fan setup that reminded me of a passenger jet spooling up on the runway to take off. I think I learned a lesson from that...trying for bleeding edge runs the risk of getting cut, in more then one sense of the term.
I am there with 1st gen thredripper right now.
@@Bamfhammer Same
Back in the early 2k, I was rocking a dual Super sparc Sun workstation, and while the speed of each core was ridiculous, CPU cache and SMP combined with a much faster I/O bus made for a wonderfully smooth obsolyte machine to work on.
An important fact from my side :
Computers with 1 CPU perform multiprogramming, that means, only one program can run on the processor at any instant.
Computers with multiple CPUs perform both multiprogramming and multiprocessing (multiprocessing means multiple programs run simultaneously at any instant, on the different processors).
I’m the guy that was in charge of building all those dual CPU Certified Data PC’s way back when. We were even filmed and on the news for doing it. I have the clip on VHS here somewhere... Thanks for the memories! Cheers.
I had 2x AMD MP 1600+ and 5 scsi drives in raid, i remember being the king at the LAN parties :D
Oh the nostalgia... I thing we also soldering some pins on XPs to make them work as MPs... where the first were much much cheaper...
it is good to be the king.
I used to have a dual socket LGA1366 motherboard with two Xeon X5675s. Actually worked really well for years and didn't cost much at all.
but..the point of the video seems to be that there is no added benefit with a possible latency issue to deal with.
@@natevelar that may be true for some scenarios like gaming and basic use like word processing, but it's ignorant to say that it's useless to have multiple CPUs. For situations like CAD, rendering or scientific workloads (which is also something people do) then the extra cores speed those up massively. Why do you think servers and workstations typically have multiple CPUs? If it didn't have any benefits, why would motherboard manufacturers even bother?
@@danwhite3224 I'm currently using an older Z400 hp server with a dedicated GPU...looking at a G4 HP server with a high scoring Xeon with two cpus. I buy them for the dependablitiy and stability...and am always unsure what advantages I will have when I move to two cpus.
4:48 I'm going to have to vote for Turnip...
I still have my shirt and wear it regularly, people often confuse it for a Trump shirt.
?
@@graceperez9672 ??
?
Turnip is "nabo" in spanish, which also can mean "idiot" where i live.
"Sos un nabo" it's the same that saying "You are a fool"
I was literally wondering about this yesterday when I was googling how supercomputers work. They have tons of individual cpu's so why not us?
The diminishing returns is a much greater problem for Windows compared to other O/S such as Solaris.
Sun had SPARC processors with 128 threads per CPU in the late 00's
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_T1
Today, the M8 has 256 threads per cpu and the T8-4 system has 4 SPARC M8 processors for 1024 threads.
Solaris scaled far better than Windows when it came to multiple threads.
Floating point performance wasn't as good. But moving large amounts of data, processing big datasets etc was short work for SPARC based machines.
Today, Sun/Oracle do the same work with connected servers running XEON processors. Provides some cost savings as well as multiple systems running so the loss of any one system has a far smaller impact compared to one large instance going down.
1U servers running Oracle Enterprise Linux with 1.5TB of RAM to do database "stuff."
They have special very high capacity inter-processor communication channels.
It would be interesting to see if older dual CPU efforts could possibly be affordable and practical or just in general perform well for todays standards.
Maybe thats an LTT video.
Also linus: 32 CPUs ON A PC HOLY $H!T!! | Season 2 Episode 7
Lol
Ive got a 8 socket workstation, it draws 3200 Watts
@@onGlobalproductions so cooling is critical and very redundant :)
I have dual E5-2690 mobo that runs at a mere 400 Watts full bore,
Imagine 64 Amd Threadripper 3990x on a motherboard
I literally asked myself this question yesterday, and today Google put this on my feed. Weeeiiird AF. But highly welcomed.
What's af
@@lynasan8657 as fuck
@@lynasan8657 as fat
@@lynasan8657 AF stands for a faster CPU according to AMD. For example, Ryzen 5 1600AF is faster than Ryzen 5 1600
@@Lightyagami-tx2xb 🤣
00:00 for a moment there I thought he was going to say 8 trigrams 64 palms 😂
Byakugan!!!
❤️🔥
Excellently written script this one. Thanks to the team writer as well as Linus for the delivery!
"For less and less money"
5000 Series:Let us introduce ourselves
intel user I smell?
there should be an open ISA that doesn’t require cooling unless overclocked. too bad arm did that already except it’s a closed ISA
@@sylv512 Nah, I actually bought the 5600x Dude
0:42 Damn I absolutely want to see a review of that motherboard!
DX was effectually two SX CPUs in one package, thats why the DX ones rocked at the time. 1.5 clock cycles per instruction cycle due to pipelines. along came the Pentium One and 1.5 instructions per clock cycle. the DX4-120 from Cyrix was just faster than the Pentium 75s. P90s and up left the DX 486 world behind. the modern era of 21st century computing had begun.
Also I don't know why people are dying for an Intel i9 my $5 pc has a Intel i386.
I want a 512 core CPU please, and it should be the size of a deck of playing cards.
@Ishtiaque Walid rendering
... and the temperature of a thermite fire?
@@scheimong for me, yes
Yah i have to play candy crush.
@@scheimong it doubles as a home heating system
$$$ aside, "Skulltrail" sounds like the most epic, metal line of CPUs ever tbh
Just wait until they invent bloodlake
Had a dual celeron 300a overclocked to 450mhz. Ran like a dream and wasn't too expensive because the celeron was a consumer grade chip that wasn't supposed to be used in SMP mode.
I built a system around the Asus L1N64-SLI board when that came out, having 4 CPU cores was just amazing to brag about, not that much I did ever made use of them that is.
That board is framed on my wall now, along with a few of the more interesting boards I've had over the years.
4:49 dang it I thought the answer was “ *D* ”
Whew, I'm saved! or rather my zippers are!
Whatever turns you on dude
Everyone first until they refresh😂😂😂
lmao
Yep
So true
This is getting old, I’ve seen it a few times now.
✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔
Anyone remember the Sega Saturn?
That system has 2 CPU's & 2 GPU's.
Ah, the memories of my first build ever, a dual Pentium III 1 Ghz system on an Abit VP6 motherboard... Such a rugged system, so much raw power, and I was able to make use of it then when I was doing graphic design work with Adobe or when playing Quake 3 instagib (/com_maxfps 0, /smp 1). Hell, I could play the game on one CPU and run a dedicated server on the other, and I DID one day just for fun! One huge advantage I remember was that my PC never slowed down when running tons of programs, which was especially helpful then with the sea of spyware start-up apps that would bring pedestrian systems to their knees. Windows 2000/XP Pro were so good at managing workloads between the CPUs that anything less than SETI@home would barely be a hiccup, and buffer under-run when burning CDs became a thing of the past. Though in contrast to the video I don't remember it being that expensive at all. There was the second CPU, of course, but that was only another ~$210, the mobo was only a little more expensive than other boards, I didn't try to max out the RAM, I had the usual 2 HHD, CD burner, a GeForce2 GTS/Pro I got for dirt cheap on ebay, it was perfectly reasonable and serviceable until it was replaced by a Pentium 4C. Maybe there were more boards then that used registered/ECC RAM and had SCSI controllers natively, cuz the VP6 was just a regular board with 2 CPU sockets and I don't think I paid anymore than $125 at most. Tho the mobo was a victim of the capacitor plague, it was still just within warranty by 2 months, got it all fixed up and it was retired to the role of LAN party server for whatever we wanted, usually counter-strike, UT2K4, Quake 3, etc.
A friend of mine still has it. Maybe I'll dust it off and see if it still works. No idea what I could possibly use it for, even 2 Pentium IIIs at 1 Ghz apiece will barely run anything modern.
Exactly what I wanted to know, strange that the TH-cam algorithm is helping!
1:10
Yeah... single-core.
But did you notice the massive 33 MHz?
I had one of those.
Upped to a Pentium 120 MHz.
Followed by AMD K6, K6-2 & K6-3 (300 MHz - 350 MHz - 450 MHz - 500 MHz)
Which was then followed by the Pentium 4, 2.4 GHz WITH HT(!!!!)
I miss those days.
That's nothing. My first 3 computers were all 8 bit, a 3.5Mhz Z80 and then two with 1.7Mhz 6502 processors. 1K, 16K and 64K of RAM respectively. The good old days. 😁
@@another3997 My first computer was a MOS 6502.
Followed by my first console... which used a derivative of the MOS 6502. xD
(C64 & NES)
The good thing about multi-CPU systems is that they were pretty much future-proof. I'm still using an OC dual-Xeon system (two 6-core CPUs at 4.33GHz) on EVGA SR-2 (MB and CPUs are from 2010) together with a 1080 GTX, and it holds up great at 1440p. This configuration saved me at least one generation of upgrades, so investing in it back then might have been a really good choice. I wouldn't go for it today though.
Techquickie ideas:
1) Quick summary of who in the tech industry is pushing the most innovation and invention.
2) Discussion of the limitations and benefits of bluetooth (why is it so good sometimes, so janky others?).
3) Discussion of the ways in which more data can be sent along higher frequencies of wifi.
4) Discussion of wireless interference.
5) Discussion of the dangers of USB-C charging (how it draws more power and can be dangerous to certain products).
6) Discussion of how to know which chargers are safe for which peripherals! (more and more of my usb charging devices are coming without instructions on power charging limitations, and no wall wart included, usually only a usb cable)
7) Discussion of powered vs unpowered usb hubs, and how to get a powered usb hub that won't damage your devices.
Used to have a Dual Pentium 200 and a Dual Pentium III-450. (The motherboards and processors still exist somewhere at my dad's place.) Those were the days. Used to run Windows NT and Linux and FreeBSD with SMP.
I like having two bros in my room ready to get to work pumping out the cores.
Wait, shouldn't it technically be possible to make a multi-CPU motherboard for Zen 2? I mean, they basically do already do that with the whole chiplet design anyway, don't they?
EPYC can do that, sure! just for desktop it doesnt make a lot of sense (latency, cooling, ...), but technically... :P
of course it's technically possible, just like it's technically possible for intel to enable HT and ECC across their entire lineup, and for nvidia to enable sr-iov on the 3070. but unlike those simple software tweaks, the market for dual socket motherboards for consumer CPUs would be even less extant than the market for SLI.
I totally agree with both of you, there's no way they're ever gonna do it, and frankly, there's no reason why they would or should, my comment was totally just for argument's sake haha...
Though, it is really funny to me to see how savvy and how focussed on doing it themselves parts of the tech community are, yet you don't really hear of any homemade motherboards (or graphic card PCBs)... which I guess just goes to show how hard it is to do and how little pay-off there could be, and thus how little the effort would pay out.
Cost. Including another socket, extra board real estate, and all the necessary wiring will be either extremely difficult, expensive, restrictive, or all of the above. Not to mention you have to throw in an extra cooler. At this point you might as well just buy a single CPU with a higher core count. Of course, if you've already got 128 cores or something, yeah, dual or quad sockets do make sense. And yes, these boards already exist.
@@thomas16green I had the same idea of plugging 2 3600s together as well, but soon came to realize that I might as well buy a 3900X and not deal with a lot of problems :D It really only makes sense if there are no bigger CPUs to buy and you *really* need more processing power. And that's how you end up with huge racks of HPC processors :P
If I've learned anything from your vids is Overkill is the only way to survive.
I do remember rocking an 8 cpu Opteron machine under my desk. That thing was super fast for its time. It had 8 dimm slots per CPU.... insane.
Don't ya love the 1 at the end of the 16 cores line at the start in green.
Someone missed the Shift key on that one, lmaoooo!!!!!1!!!1
3:20 the sound of a samsumg phone got caugth by the mic xD
@Big Fat Boi NOPE xD
it's like youtube having the second ad; whilst linus segway-ing his ads.
-this comment is made possible by glassware
Me watching this in my trusty old dual 6 core 2010 Mac Pro
Nice! I literally just watched this on my 2010 hp z600 with dual xeon x5650
@Big Fat Boi maybe in time. might be selling this current rig soon to help get a xbox series x
6 core????????????????????????????
@@OnionYeeter Yups, Intel Xeon
@@blakemalley9053 Cool, I have dual x5675's, I even game on it
i've been running a Quad Opteron for my home PC since 2014. Just upgraded processors, ram, and GPU on it the past week :)
If you looking for short answer. Data center technician here. All of our servers have dual cpus. They are not there to combine power, but for two purposes: 1. If one fails the other kicks in 2. Each one has a purpose different from the other one ie two customers could use same host.
Short Answer: As long as it has the same instruction sets.
"Probably". Try running anything in virtual... then two cpus are a godsend
CUDA explained, please! :)
I had one of the first dual CPU consumer platforms back in the day, the legendary Abit BP6 with two Celeron chips. The problem was none of the consumer operating systems of the day supported more than one CPU, so I've had to compile a Linux kernel which added SMP support and also dual-boot into Windows NT for my Windows software. On top of that, device drivers back then weren't really designed to be thread-safe, so I remember frequent lock-ups with Creative's sound drivers. It was really a lot more trouble than what it's worth.
When Windows 2000 Pro came out, that was actually a pleasant and performant operating system which supported dual processors and ran many popular games of the day at a decent speed, such as Quake 3, which in itself was one of the few games that supported dual processors. Happy days. Compatibility wasn't 100% though, so I still had to keep a Win98SE partition around for many games.
I ran a dual Pentium 3 733 for a few years in the early 2000's. Rocked Windows NT, 2000, and XP. Not for playing games, for game development when we had to process art assets ahead of time when making local builds. Ran multi cpu after than until eventually we got multi core machines standard off the shelf.
went from 16 bits to 16 cores
2:10 I don't think I would turst a dual CPU machine from a place literally called "London Drugs"...
Ahahaha no London Drugs is a prominent drug store in Canada, with a long time electronics department selling computers, parts, and other things.
Linus, for future reference; the mid 2000's is 2050.
That would be 2500
@@idknuttin I digress, lol
th-cam.com/video/-VOC_ODfdl4/w-d-xo.html
I think "mid-naughties" is a mostly British term though. Don't know what the equivalent would be in Canada.
@@idknuttin it wouldn’t if you think it like 2000’s, 2100’s, 2200’s etc. etc.
That vendor name checks out. Totally legit and as advertised. 2:10
I had the pleasure of a Dell dual Xeon workstation bought in 2004. No one else coded multithreaded like I was doing, because I had my machine to run the game loop at 240fps.
Why ignore macs with dual CPUs? Like the Powermac G5 Quad and Mac Pro.
Also the PowerMac G4
Yeah, those definitely happened before 08, had many examples, and weren't limited to just businesses.
BBC Micro could have a second processor and that machine dates to 1981, also the processor could be a different type. Archimedes machines had a risc processor and could have a second 486/586 processor installed to allow window to run at the same time.
Sun and SGI of course had multiple CPU workstations ages before either. Was a time when they were the some of the only option if you needed to do proper workstation tasks and needed an OS optimised for it. Oh how things have changed.
As a #Homelab aficionado I say YES 🖥
they should make a motherboard with 4 CPU sockets and call it the DADDYBOARD
yeah these videos are stacked right, honestly reviewed by the team are Great.
Even with diminished returns I still would love to see Flight Simulator 2020 run on a dual cpu board with maxed settings as a video on here
I just downloaded more cpu and ram from the internet! Silly people, I got it for free 😎
Don't forget to download PCI EXPRESS 4.0.
And seed more so others can enjoy too.
Ik its scam but. Good Joke
@@Super-zk1kq the best thing, bots are not a problem there.
Yes u got viruses for free ik v well
People still dont know that they can simply download more cpu and ram from the internet
Exactly 😆
I downloaded a Ryzen 1 bill for free and it so fast. Can even load through the gta screens in 1 second
I downloaded 2 Ryzen Treadripper off the internet and 2 RTX 3090TI in SLI and 10pib of ram.
I kinda want to see a motherboard with two CPUs with one dedicated to the OS and the other for applications
Ooooooooo yeaaaah that sounds amazing
That kind-of happens with Windows now. Windows may try to stack as many small programs onto a single core when the cores are not loaded to take advantage of turbo boost.
It's very hard to use exactly 100% of a CPU. With just a 2nd core, you almost always will have at least a tiny bit of CPU power to keep things running more skookum.
I think the PS4 also did what you mentioned. There's a mini OS on an ARM processor or something to help run stuff in the background. It led to some weird things like a hard drive running off a USB bus. Seriously... check out the PS4 hack video.
Lol love the DD car analogy, we used to dominate the local SPL competitions using a single DD 12" pushing the all into it.
I used to have a Dual Pentium 133 MHz with 64Mb memory running on a HX chipset. The best part was being able to have the ability to launch a game on specific one CPU, while the rest of Windows 2000 ran on the other. Back in the days that was the best performance I could squeeze out of any computer.
Well I'm still running my dual xeon 2006 mac pro so yeah
Well, I love my Dual Xeon E5v2 setup. Even though it demands a lot of care 😅
I have my handfull of favoured applications that do scale with cores as well as with frequency.
Not to mention my BIONC workloads😄
I hope I can love my new dual Platinum 8124M setup as well.... once I got my 12 DIMMs.
no, you should put 3 CPUs
Damn you here to upgrade your laptop
You forgot to mention my Dual PII-300 Board with 3 Voodoo GPUs in SLI, POWAH!