You can put as many as you like but if your board only takes one they are just going to rattle around.

The fact that it's called a MOTHERboard makes the child fighting analogy so much better

It's always "Two CPUs in one Board" It's never "Two Boards in one CPU"

Next project: build 2 entire computers in a single tower case and make them work together

It's like having two wives in one house

Instructions unclear, thermalpasted 2 CPUs together

Hey, you should collab with Linus Tech Tips!

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!

It WAS long ago that single-core was common. You're just old, Linus. We all are.

"it wasn't that long ago that just single core cpus were the norm" Buddy that was over a decade and a half ago.

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.

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.

2040: Do you need a CPU in your PC?

I always cram two CPU's in my motherboard whether it likes it or not... Sometimes more.

POV: trying to talk to the salesperson at the computer section 0:00

This feels like a "Two cooks running the kitchen" scenario.

"Can't make your neighbors more upset than they already are " :D Just loved it

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.

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?

Just duct tape the second CPU to the one you're actually using and use it as a heat sink.

"Why do multiple CPUs not scale well?" *Dragostea Din Tei plays in the background*

$$$ aside, "Skulltrail" sounds like the most epic, metal line of CPUs ever tbh

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

Nobody: Linus: I am glad you asked..

Simple answer: The Windows scheduler can only barely handle existing single socket Threadripper platforms as it is.

I literally asked myself this question yesterday, and today Google put this on my feed. Weeeiiird AF. But highly welcomed.

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.

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.

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.

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).

"For less and less money" 5000 Series:Let us introduce ourselves

I remember in the days of single core cpus - a dual cpu system was my dream. SMP 🤤

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.

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'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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

ahhh this brings me back to a dual celeron build crushing every Quake 3-built system wayyy back in 2000 :))

Don't ya love the 1 at the end of the 16 cores line at the start in green.

I like having two bros in my room ready to get to work pumping out the cores.

00:00 for a moment there I thought he was going to say 8 trigrams 64 palms 😂

Everyone first until they refresh😂😂😂

Short Answer: As long as it has the same instruction sets.

❤️🔥 Excellently written script this one. Thanks to the team writer as well as Linus for the delivery!

Also linus: 32 CPUs ON A PC HOLY $H!T!! | Season 2 Episode 7

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.

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.

1:24 mid 2000s? How long have I been asleep?

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.

I had 2x AMD MP 1600+ and 5 scsi drives in raid, i remember being the king at the LAN parties :D

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.

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 want a 512 core CPU please, and it should be the size of a deck of playing cards.

Whew, I'm saved! or rather my zippers are!

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.

it's like youtube having the second ad; whilst linus segway-ing his ads. -this comment is made possible by glassware

4:49 dang it I thought the answer was “ *D* ”

4:40 MOM MOM MOOOOOM *motherboard explodes*

Imagine having two 64 core threadrippers and dual RTX 3090s running microsoft flight simulator at 8k ultra settings with both the Threadripper and the 3090s overclocked as far as they can go. I wonder how much power that would use.

i've been running a Quad Opteron for my home PC since 2014. Just upgraded processors, ram, and GPU on it the past week :)

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.

3:20 the sound of a samsumg phone got caugth by the mic xD

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.

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.

If I've learned anything from your vids is Overkill is the only way to survive.

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?

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.

linus: whats preventing you to put more cpu in your motherboard? me: *_my electricity bill_*

I just downloaded more cpu and ram from the internet! Silly people, I got it for free 😎

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.

Exactly what I wanted to know, strange that the KZfaq algorithm is helping!

"Probably". Try running anything in virtual... then two cpus are a godsend

"So do you mean I can get my pc and my dads cpu in 1 to increase performance"

0:42 Damn I absolutely want to see a review of that motherboard!

Me: looks at tittle Also me: tries it instantly without watching video

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.

Why ignore macs with dual CPUs? Like the Powermac G5 Quad and Mac Pro.

Me watching this in my trusty old dual 6 core 2010 Mac Pro

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.

Lol love the DD car analogy, we used to dominate the local SPL competitions using a single DD 12" pushing the all into it.

no, you should put 3 CPUs

CUDA explained, please! :)

My dad bought a 2009 Mac Pro and got 14 gigs of memory with 2 4-core Intel Xeon processors. He got the dual cpus for futureproofing, because he needed a powerful workstation that would last for years. He only recently replaced it this year with a Mac Studio, and it had a long life of 13 years

For a time, I ran a dual-CPU rig (EVGA SR-2, dual E5645, 12GB DDR3), and while I loved it, I won't go back to multi-CPU unless I have to. The major reason is this: When something goes wrong, you have (nearly) twice as many components to check over to find out what caused it. Whether it's reseating 6 sticks of RAM in a futile hope to find that missing 2GB, replacing both CPU coolers because one AIO liquid cooler has decided to stop cooling, or irritating software compatibility issues caused by having too many cores for your older software to comprehend, you're going to have problems. Add to that the general size of any multi-CPU build (the boards are massive, requiring massive cases, which then require huge amounts of room to put them), the power consumption (When just idling can consume enough power to run a normal CPU flat out, it's bad), and the added maintenance headaches (cleaning out your heatsinks? Here, have twice as many. Dead CPU fan? Replace both, because if one died, the other's not going to last much longer. Time to reapply new thermal compound? Have fun, you get to do it twice), and you end up with a mildly frustrating experience. Don't get me wrong, if you're up for a high-maintenance machine that, 90% of the time is rock-solid, Dual-CPU is great. That machine will likely remain as my fastest ever computer, and the longest I've ever run a single board without significant upgrades, but I found out it's just not for me. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's like trying liquid cooling, deciding it's not for you, and going back to air cooling with big tower heatsinks. I did that, too, because air cooling is simpler, less likely to break down, blow up, or just flat out make a mess. The biggest things that have actually made this decision for me is upgrades and performance. See, in a normal single-CPU system, you have three major upgrades that don't really have to cost too much. CPU, RAM, and GPU. I'm ignoring hard-disks or SSD's, they don't count for this purpose. In a dual-CPU system, you have twice the amount of CPU's to upgrade at the same time, and twice the amount of RAM that has to be upgraded, again, at the same time. Suddenly, any CPU upgrade you're looking at is instantly twice as expensive. Hence, I kept E5645's the whole time, because anything faster would need two chips, and that gets pricy fast. I had 6 sticks of 2GB Corsair Dominator memory, because dual-CPU-triple-channel required that as a minimum. Any upgrade to my memory would have been a full kit of 6 sticks, minimum. And that performance half of it? I'm not just talking programs here. In that system, there would have been no benefit to the boot time by installing a solid-state drive. What's 15 seconds going to save me when it takes 30 seconds to check out everything before initializing the display? Then there's programs that don't recognize CPU1 and so they all pile up on CPU0, there's programs that crash because somehow CPU0 is handling all of their workload, but CPU1 is where the program's memory got allocated, and there's the fact that 80% of your average daily workload, as a home user, is unlikely to make the most of even one of those 6-core-12-thread Xeons. So, while I loved it, it sits there under my desk while I use a laptop with an i5 that I swear feels faster some days. Partly, the desktop is out of operation because of an overheating issue that I can't solve. Considering the board's northbridge cooling fan exploded, I'm not that surprised, and considering the number of changes I've made over the roughly 9 years of ownership, I wouldn't be surprised if I blocked the airflow to something like the VRM's and never noticed it, but I tried for three months and still couldn't keep it stable in the summer. As for what my next main rig will be, I don't know yet. Ryzen has me tempted, though. For now, my trusty i5-5300U and my 8GB of RAM is good enough.

I had a dual Pentium 2 400 back in the late 90s' the board.

People still dont know that they can simply download more cpu and ram from the internet

I remember in high school thinking that the Skulltrail platform was the coolest thing ever, and wishing I could build one.

basically we can increase the bus width on motherboard and divide it equally to multiple cpus by creating data dividing bridge on motherboard for processing. In this way by using two 64 bit cpus 128 bit data can be processed at a time, 256 bit data by four 64 bit cpus, 512 bit data by eight 64 bit cpus and so on for next generation ultra fast processing technique.

Of course you should put two CPUs in your PC. :P I love my EVGA SR-2 with dual 6-core Xeons and my dual E5-2667v2 system. Believe it or not, they good gaming rigs. No comparison to todays machines, but it's a niche with a lot of fun :)

I was wanting a video on this a few days ago. Don't believe me? I wouldn't either, and I am me.

While individual software did not support dual CPU it helped in the overall smoothness of the system that ran several processes. There were some licensing issues. XP Home was not licensed for two CPUs. XP Pro was.

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.

Well I'm still running my dual xeon 2006 mac pro so yeah

3:19 phone notification detected

Joke's on you - all my zippers are busted already!

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.