AMD vs. intel for Linux KVM machine

[nanonyme]

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.

[lbcoder]

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.

Ibcoder - looks like your cpu can't do vt in hardware - or I am blind

[deanjo]

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.

[energyman]

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.

[lbcoder]

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.

$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 23
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 2003.000
cache size : 2048 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
core id : 0
cpu cores : 4
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 10
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 lahf_lm
bogomips : 4682.26
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

Hi guys.

I'm building a machine to play with Linux KVM. Actually I have 4 options to go:

Intel Core2 - support for: VT-x, VT-d / IOMMU (on Q35/45 chipsets)
Intel Core i7 - support for VT-x, VT-d (chipset), EPT (nested pages)
K8 AMD Athlon64 - support for AMD-V
K10 AMD Phenom II / Athlon II - suport for AMD-V and Nested pages


Second Option Intel Nehalem I expect to be most powerful, but it is too expensive for me. K8 Architecture I think is outdated. So I'm deciding mainly between Core2 and AMD K10.5 architecture, which is VT-d vs. Nested pages decision too.

What is the best option to go? AMD 10.5? Intel Core2? Or Core i7 bcause the advantage si too big? I appreciate every idea. Thanks a lot.

PS: I saw almost every benchmark here on Phoronix, but it usually does not compare main competitors AMD vs. Intel or ATI vs. nVidia. This time, comparison AMD vs. Intel would be useful.

[energyman]

http://techgage.com/article/amd_phenom_ii_x4_955_black_edition/4

be carefull with core2. Intel loves to screw over customers.

See this:

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

as an example. Four cpus, three times the exact same name. But only one can do vt.

[BlackStar]

Fortunately, there are many benchmarks that compare Phenoms and Cores in typical usage *and* virtualization.

Phenoms II CPUs are very competitive on both fronts and slightly cheaper. The big question is the rest of the platform (motherboard, video cards etc). AMD tends to have the advantage from a feature/price standpoint, but Linux changes the equation.

Are you planning to use the built-in IGP or buy a separate GPU?

[duby229]

I was referring to desktop CPU vs. server CPU (ie. hardware), not desktop workload vs. server workload.

In AMD platforms the server brands are essentially identical to the workstation and desktop brands. Really the only comparisons that make sense is the loads that you put on them. Examples being AMD's Barcelona is a server processor that is identical to AMD's Deneb Desktop processor. They come off the same line from the same factory and are even cut from the same wafers. The difference is in the binning process. According to quality control standards some are binned a Opterons, some as Phenom X4, Others with one bad die are X3, and still others are binned as Athlon X2. From the worst of the batch to the best of the batch.

So since we know that the CPU's are essentially the same, your trying to say that a server load is indicative of a desktop load, and that simply is not the case. You can look at apache benches and say that this CPU will run apache at this level, and a Phenom X4 should roughly produce the same results. The problem is that we dont run apache on our desktops and so that benchmark has no value to a desktop user. I dont play mysql. I dont edit documents with apache. I dont browse the web with gcc.

[chithanh]

The types of software that is run on a desktop is a lot different then software for servers. I dont run apache on my desktop, but I do run Nexuiz... They arent exactly comparable loads now are they?

I was referring to desktop CPU vs. server CPU (ie. hardware), not desktop workload vs. server workload.

[curaga]

If anyone is going to make a comparison, I'd make the wish of including the Via Nano in it. And not only compared to each other's virtualization performance, I'm mainly interested in a comparison between their native and virtualized performance.