2

I have several different workloads that have different requirements for the CPU. One is easily parallelizable, so it works best with many cores, even if they aren't individually very powerful. The other is purely single threaded, so it works best with one screaming fast core. To get the best of both worlds, I would think that the ideal (other than just having two completely separate machines, which is a boring answer) would be something of a similar philosophy to the "big.LITTLE" setup that ARM uses: having a few very powerful cores and many low-power cores. Of course, neither AMD nor Intel sell a processor with such a structure internally (correct me if I'm wrong!), so the only remotely possible option would be using a dual-socket server motherboard, with two different models of processors. I know this is generally considered a bad idea but it is officially supported by some processor families (e.g: see section 2.3 of this Intel Xeon datasheet).

Are there examples of any hardware that would even be physically capable of this? I'm not actually that serious about building it, but I find it a very interesting hypothetical build. Note that I'm not asking if it's a good idea (it's not, in all but the rarest of niche use cases), just: Does there exist

  1. A dual socket (server) motherboard with appropriate sockets for...
  2. A low-core, high-performance processor (1-4 cores)
  3. And a high-core, low-power/lower-performance processor (something like 8+ cores)? (Alternatively, a low-cost, low-power processor with less cores, but with 3 of them in a quad socket motherboard)
  • Isn't that question better suited for hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com? – Hex Jun 29 '18 at 5:37
  • @Hex - I'm new to SuperUser, so feel free to migrate me if that's better. I wasn't sure between here, there, or ServerFault. – twieg Jun 29 '18 at 6:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.