Quad CPU Desktop

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 26th, 2004, 8:53 pm

Zalman's GVS600 fulfills this long dream. Zalman plans to launch a TNN version for 2 CPUs and the GVS600 very soon. These 2 cases will be aimed at the workstation market. This might be the very thing that starts up x16 PCI-Express for Quad CPUs.

Dual CPUs

Quad CPUs

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 27th, 2004, 4:49 pm

Damn.. I wish I had that baby.. How much do you think it cost?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 27th, 2004, 5:02 pm

Well, the TNN for 1 CPU costs ~$1K.
The dual would most likely be ~$1.5K.
I would give the quad ~$2K.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 27th, 2004, 6:19 pm

I would give the quad 2.5k

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » June 27th, 2004, 8:51 pm

lets look at the quad and dual, 1) how much would the whole system cost
2) How much more performance is given(compared to the single version of hte processor in the quad or dual system or other single processors) 3) with new technologies such as dual core in amd and the fact that computers are doubling in speed every 18 months (performance wise also if not speed) how long till you get a single processor capable with that performance? 4) depending on how much that will cost is it worth it buying one dual or quad or just buying 2 or 3 computers for the same price as the dual or quad and just have multiple people work on a part of what ever you woudl need that power for?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 28th, 2004, 4:05 am

4 CPUs on a motherboard has more power than 4 motherboards with 1 CPU because of the travel quality and distance for the electrons. Also, some people could wait forever because computers always get better. Some people, however, need 4*2.9GHz of AMD64 power now.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » June 30th, 2004, 2:17 am

what i'm saying whit what we got is it worth buynig quad systems and i'm not saying 1 cpu for 4 mother boards i'm saying 1 cpu compared to the quad system how much more pefromance

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 30th, 2004, 2:25 am

You get about 4x the performance with a quad system according to AMD.

However, a normal person would not get a quad CPU system. Only extremists do this.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » June 30th, 2004, 2:27 am

one more thing about quads or any multi processor unit wouldnt the programs hve to me multi threaded to take adavantage of dual or quad systems

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 30th, 2004, 2:30 am

Programs can already run with multiple CPUs.
Since Windows has so many tasks, they are spread across each CPU evenly.

The only thing you will need is a new OS.
XP only supports up to 2 CPUs.
You would need Windows Server Edition 2003.

Post by **ccb056** » June 30th, 2004, 11:13 pm

just one thing I have to mention:

Having a dual or quad cpu setup doesn't really make the computer faster, it just makes it run smoother and allows it to run more programs at once.

YEP · Post by **YEP** » August 24th, 2004, 11:20 am

Aggressor Prime wrote:You get about 4x the performance with a quad system according to AMD.

However, a normal person would not get a quad CPU system. Only extremists do this.

Well what was the HW setup ???

In the real world you'd loos some performance due to the OS's need for some "juice" too (interaction between the CPU's doesn't happen all by it self)

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » August 24th, 2004, 9:11 pm

That would only happen for Intel systems. Each AMD CPU has it's own memory contoller, thus the "juice" is applied equally be it a 1x CPU system or a 4x CPU system.

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 19th, 2004, 11:26 pm

get UNIX and you can have 256 processors.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » November 20th, 2004, 12:29 am

smileymattj · Post by **smileymattj** » November 20th, 2004, 2:01 am

windows xp says you break the copyright law if you have more than 2 processors, are you running xp, just wondering if you can get it to work, wouldnt be suprising if they make in incompatible.

indomidable · Post by **indomidable** » March 10th, 2005, 12:31 pm

Well actually when I built my dual 1.9 Ghz Athalon MP, The OS (XP) loaded so fast I only saw the Loading WinXP screen for 1 second. Granted I disabled prefetch etc. I'm also running Raid 0 across 2 7200 RPM/60GB HDD's ATA100 didn't have 133 drives at the time. Heck my Mobo has 4 PCI64 slots. back to the point. Truthfully More CPU's doesn't increase what the PC does it could if programs were written parallel http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/dbpp/ but since their normally single structured. Multiple CPU's won't work that way. Granted you can Play MP3's, while Encoding Video/Audio etc. and Play a Game and Burn CD/DVD with no sweat on a 2 or 4 cpu system. But lets say you want all 4 processors to assist on that game your playing if the game is compiled (created for 1 CPU aka 99% of all games) your going to see no real boost except for the processes windows/Linux/Unix is not running on that CPU. So adverage tweeked XP box is running 30-45 processes so the OS could easily put those on an unused processor giving a full {insert CPU here} for the diffrence between programs see http://www.evaluationengineering.com/pc ... 02pcni.htm for a decent explination. As to the final question by smileymattj: Windows XP has a Hardware fingerprint if you will... It will not run on more then 2 CPU's. The code isn't there to support more or it's non-functioning. When I had my 4 cpu 1ghz Intel cpu blade server I had to get the 4 cpu win2k server to run it. 2kpro only worked on 2CPU or less.

471c · Post by **471c** » October 13th, 2005, 2:16 pm

Quad cpu on linux rox! My system has an uptime that could shame most admins on the planet!

Currently:- 591days : 8hours : 14mins

All thanks to 4 Opterons, 16Gb ECC PC2700 and just under 2.2Tb of RAID storage across 8 hPnP hard disks. And its totally up to date and secure thanks to APT & a few home brewed scripts. [/b]

471c · Post by **471c** » October 13th, 2005, 2:17 pm

M$ users weep