Should You Put TWO CPUs In Your PC? 

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 like having two wives in one house

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

Instructions unclear, thermalpasted 2 CPUs together

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

2040: Do you need a CPU in your PC?

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!

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.

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

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

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

Hey, you should collab with Linus Tech Tips!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Nobody: Linus: I am glad you asked..

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Everyone first until they refresh😂😂😂

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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 :)

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

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

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 :)

Exactly what I wanted to know, strange that the RU-vid algorithm is helping!

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.

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

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

CUDA explained, please! :)

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

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’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.

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

As a #Homelab aficionado I say YES 🖥

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

My MP builds in that era: Abit BP6 2x Celeron overclocked Tyan Tiger MP 2x Athlon pin mod & overclocked User experience was remarkably snappier than single core systems in that era, in the same manner moving to an SSD is today, regardless of whether a single game/app could benefit much. However, able to simultaneously host Quake servers, etc. and run client with no performance hit. Good old days of overclocking when you could truly stretch budget/value parts. Core2Duo came along for the next build, have since abandoned MP builds.

I had a dual Pentium 166 back in the day. It wasn't just that there wasn't much in multithreaded programs. You needed at least Windows NT or Linux to even be able to use the second cpu. In W95 or W98 the second CPU was unavailable... Also in those days the CPUs had to be the same and preferably from the same batch or it would be unstable. But it did allow you to encode a CD to MP3 and still have usable system. Which mattered since encoding an entire CD to mp3 took hours that you could otherwise not use your system for something else ;-)

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

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

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

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.

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

2:10 I don't think I would turst a dual CPU machine from a place literally called "London Drugs"...

they should make a motherboard with 4 CPU sockets and call it the DADDYBOARD

no, you should put 3 CPUs

Back in the day we were visiting my dad's friend and in his garage he had plenty of computer parts and so we just made a computer except 2 CPU's which kept the cost down and also we were playing with 386 parts not 486 as this was the older stuff in their garage that they had plenty of which was not so outdated at the time, and then later more of these things popped up and people were eventually trying to make 586 PC's. The problem now, which this video talks about is the software not taking advantage of the hardware. An other thing I did back when I was younger was look into solid state drive technology, that had been around sense the 1980's. An other funny thing is having a circuit board full of RAM and using it like a temporary drive which as you probably know is going to loose all the data if that computer gets turned off, and so you still wanted to work with a hard drive and then move some data over to the circuit board full of RAM. Solid state drive technology from way back when what I played with, which you might as well think of as a USB flash drive with less storage space, but this was before USB was available but really the technology was different.

You can get 8 cpu and 4 cpu systems for reasonable prices, the reason you would get one: any cpu thread heavy application such as physics/stats calculations,/3d rendering. Video editing never really used multi-cpu setups (except for Avid). The MP was the first consumer multi-processor system, AMD were already supplying military usage multi-cpu systems (16 cpus for SA radar spoofing).

Instructions unclear, painted a cardboard silver and wrote AMD 32 core

EVERYONE but Intel calls it Simultaneous Multi-threading because that's the actual term for it. "Hyperthreading" is just a marketing term that Intel made up.

69 cores? That's hardcore! Of course!

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 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.