Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This question already has an answer here:

This question was already asked for windows 8 and i'm hoping (albeit fairly sure that no) that microsoft changed their policies. Does anyone know if windows 8.1 now support > 2physical CPU in any form? I'd like to build a monster but have it dual boot windows server & windows 8.1 for development purposes (by monster i mean 80 to 160 cores), i know i will be limited to 512GB of ram but i can live with that, but 2 physical CPU is way way low.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Karan, Sathya Jul 27 '13 at 19:14

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question.

@Karan that really is the only approach that begins to make sense with this to me. Although, if you can afford 80-160 cores for development I see no reason to dual boot, just build a Win 8 machine or run it in a VM for $100 - 1000. – AthomSfere Jul 7 '13 at 0:12
I need a that large win 8 machine, not a smaller version running on the same machine, & so it wouldn't help at all i think (unless hyperv cores only count as logical cores? If so that could be a workaround, i could hyper V, run a windows 8.1 VM & assign all 160 logical cores to it). Would that work? Or would windows 8 detect that & complain? – Ronan Thibaudau Jul 7 '13 at 0:35
Do you really need more than Windows 8 already supports? We expect you to ask actual questions you face. – Ramhound Jul 7 '13 at 1:21
Yes i do (and already use that in servers) i now am looking for an alternative to use this on windows 8 too (as currently i'm split between a remote rented server and my local machine) because some apps are checking for a server version & some for a non server os, i'd like a single physical machine for all this as i'm definately not shelling out the cash for this kind of machine twice. I actually do need more than is physically possible, but i do with what exists, so as far as i know the max i can physically buy is 8 physical proc at 10 cores each * HT = 8X10X2 = 160 threads, with 2-4TB ram – Ronan Thibaudau Jul 7 '13 at 1:39
And all that would be easier if it was for a problem that could scale to multiple machine, but it's not the case, i use massively parallel things that aren't chunkable in smaller parts (algorithm works on all the data at once, so you can't say "i take 100 machines, give each of them 1% of the data", you'd have to say "i take 100 machines, give each of them 100% of the data & ram usage, and have them join all the time". Besides just buying the rights to the program i use in source form + rewriting it would be more costly than such a machine – Ronan Thibaudau Jul 7 '13 at 1:40

Well 80 to 160 logical processors, not psyhical ... Latest Intel processor have 10 psyhical cores, and that is Intel® Xeon® Processor E7-8870 (30M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI), well is not last but is the strongest :)

Maximum of RAM is 4TB, amazing :)

share|improve this answer
Yes but if it's still 2 physical processors, then you're not going to hit anywhere near as many, atm the best is 10 core / 20 threads from intel, that's only 40 threads out of 2 physical CPU, way way bellow my need, is why i'm hoping they lifted that in win 8.1 – Ronan Thibaudau Jul 6 '13 at 23:14
What does the limits that Intel has placed on their platform have to do with Windows in the slightest? – Ramhound Jul 7 '13 at 1:22
It's not related to intel at all, it's about windows 8 limiting the max number of "physical" CPU, i need more cores than it's possible today with 2 "physical" CPUs, i need all 8 for a 8 way type machine. – Ronan Thibaudau Jul 7 '13 at 1:37
Windows Server 2012 does not have those same limits… – Ramhound Jul 7 '13 at 1:47

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .