Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: AMD vs. intel for Linux KVM machine

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    Ibcoder - looks like your cpu can't do vt in hardware - or I am blind

    well, my point stands - intel tries to screw users. There are SEVERAL cpus with the EXACT same naming - some of them can do virtualization in hardware, some can't and you can not check that until you have built them into your box.

    Screw intel, go amd. The 955 and 966 gives the 920i and qx9770 a run for their money - while still cheaper. Money you can put into quality mainboards and lots of fast ram.

    If you want virtualization, go AMD.
    Hard to believe we agree sometimes.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Thats exactly my point.
    And this is my work computer FYI.... which is why I ended up with inteljunk. All I could do (this time around) was give a list of requirements and let them pick the hardware to meet it. One of those requirements was hardware virtualization -- and of course when it came in, it didn't, which was a shock to the guy they had actually built the thing (understandably). Because of this, next time around I get to give precise and detailed specs... and a bigger budget.

    I don't think that the hardware guy is going to last much longer... the server fiasco was almost enough to put an instant end to dealings with him.... an asus gamer-type mainboard with a phenom chip (not even a "corp stable" board...), a "hardware raid" card that was actually FAKERAID-sata, a backplane that supported sata only and connected via delicate sata plugs (rather than a proper sas backplane with SFF-8087 plug) when the price was *identical*, and a bunch of consumer-grade sata disks (for a DATABASE HOST!!!) -- and this is for THE machine that this company DEPENDS on.... no farm here with multiple redundant servers. I had a few changes made, naturally... like the whole thing went back to drawing board.


    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    Ibcoder - looks like your cpu can't do vt in hardware - or I am blind

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lbcoder View Post
    If you want to guarantee that you actually get a cpu that supports virtualization, stick with AMD. These intel crapolas may or may not support virtualization in any particular model number at their whim and getting documentation from them to prove one way or another is quite nearly impossible.
    False statement. You just have to look up the model from Intel. That's what I did when I bought a Core 2 Duo with VT support. It's generally easy as long as you're smart enough to use Google.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    False statement. You just have to look up the model from Intel. That's what I did when I bought a Core 2 Duo with VT support. It's generally easy as long as you're smart enough to use Google.
    WRONG

    http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id...es=SLB9U,SLGTL

    five versions of the E5300, 2 of them can do vt in hardware, three can't and no way for you looking onto the package to tell which one is the right one.

    http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36500#specs

    E7400

    the same. Five versions, two can do vt. All the same name. Only the ordering code is different. But on the package they are all the same.

    There is a name for that:
    malicious deceit

    edit: and of course, this are just two examples. There are more.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    It should be known already that the Pentium E6300 is the cheapest dual and the Core2 Q8300 is the cheapest quad from intel with VT for desktop systems. For laptops i usually look always at the intel list to know what the cpu is capable of. There are also more expensive series with VT like Core2 E6,E8,Q6 and Q9 which all support VT. E6300 alone is no correct identifier as there are 2 cpus with that name, Pentium and Core2. I would definitely not get that Pentium E5300 because that's unknown which cpu you will receive.
    Last edited by Kano; 09-03-2009 at 03:54 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    Kano - look again at the two links I posted (and there is more:
    Q8300:
    http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id...es=SLB5W,SLGUR

    one version can do vt, five can't. You buy a Q8300? You have a good change to be screwed by Intel.

    nanonyme: you are right, there is an easy way to get a cpu doing vt in hardware, and google helps you find one:
    just buy AMD.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    Right, maybe be on the secure path an get something from Q9. the diff is very small anyway. Mainly OEM buy those Q8 cpus because they need something with quad cores. The Q8200 is often used there but i would never consider that cpu as usefull - especially in a board which does not allow OC. 2.33 ghz is very low...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lbcoder View Post
    I don't think that the hardware guy is going to last much longer... the server fiasco was almost enough to put an instant end to dealings with him.... an asus gamer-type mainboard with a phenom chip (not even a "corp stable" board...), a "hardware raid" card that was actually FAKERAID-sata, a backplane that supported sata only and connected via delicate sata plugs (rather than a proper sas backplane with SFF-8087 plug) when the price was *identical*, and a bunch of consumer-grade sata disks (for a DATABASE HOST!!!) -- and this is for THE machine that this company DEPENDS on.... no farm here with multiple redundant servers. I had a few changes made, naturally... like the whole thing went back to drawing board.
    Wow he didnt get fired straight away? You guys are too nice

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordmozilla View Post
    Wow he didnt get fired straight away? You guys are too nice
    Generally with people like that it's easier to promote them out of harm's way

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    Well it depends on the os you want to run if you will like fake raid or not. Win runs without problems on it usually and even if your board dies you can fire up Linux (maybe not Ubuntu if HPA is used) and you get access to your data with any board using dmraid. Maybe do a stress test and replace one hd when you configured raid1 or 5. But of course any raid does not solve backup problems. If your data is really important then best sync it on another pc which could run as fallback and maybe even on external storage as well. Gamer hardware is usally good quality but maybe a bit unusual to have got a cmos clear button on it So bios passwords are really easy to bypass - it would take a little bit longer on another system. But anyway everybody with phyical access can do changes to a system or copy data.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •