CPU Upgrade to support Virtualization?

[markwolfe Veteran]

Ok, currently I have an Intel Core 2 Duo (E4600) does not support Intel "Virtualization Technology".

I have an ASUS P5B SE motherboard, but not sure of two things:

1. What other (inexpensive!) CPU could I buy as a replacement that would support VT, plus be compatible with my MB
   
2. Would the VT support make a noticable difference?
   

On item #2, I use Linux and KVM, and I currently get a message telling me that my hardware doesn't support hardware acceleration. I assume that using a VT-enabled CPU would permit the kernel-based virtualization that I am seeking. However, I am really not going to be excited if I buy a new CPU and find that I spent money and don't get a significant speed boost in a virtual machine.

Any of you Neowin hardware gurus (which I am not!) have some insight, particularly when it comes to CPUs with VT technology?

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

I believe VT support is only good for VMWare and stuff like that where you see a difference, I run it often on my Intel E6750 chip and runs well.

Aside from that I don't see why you would need to have VT support unless you use that.

You could buy the 6750 chip, or something better as your board does support 45nm/1333mhz fsb chips :)

http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmen...l3=307&l4=0

Here you can see a list of processors under 45nm and using 1333mhz, those will work on your board, but make sure you have the latest BIOS juts to make sure it has the updated info to support the newest chips.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor_nu...rt/core2duo.htm

I also see your in the US, I don't know any local stores but http://www.newegg.com is really good for cheap computer stuff.

[RAID 0]

Mark, you have the Intel 965 chipset. That means you're very limited to what CPU you can use. You need to have a Core 2 Duo, 65nm, 1066 FSB max. You chipset does not support a quad core... none that I've seen anyway.

I've been looking on NewEgg and can't find a CPU for you. You might want to think about going to at least a P35 or is you can, a P45. You'll have a much better upgrade path in the future.

Edit. This is your best bet. Here

[39 Thieves]

2.) it depends. I have it enabled in Virtualbox in all VMs unless it causes specific issues (FreeBSD and its derivatives seem to puke with it enabled)

*however*

According to the Virtualbox developers faq;

* Q: Does VirtualBox support CPU virtualization enhancements such as Intel VT-x (codename Vanderpool) and AMD SVM?

A: Yes, we provide full support for Intel VT-x and experimental support for AMD SVM. However, we do not make use of these features by default. You have to enable it either globally or on a per VM basis. The reason is very simple: our x86 virtualization is very sophisticated and in most cases it provides significantly better performance than when relying on VT-x. Virtualization products that rely on VT-x are usually much less sophisticated and tuned. With VT-x, a special CPU environment has to be entered in order to execute guest code and whenever activity of the VMM is required, this environment has to be left and then entered again. This is painfully slow and will take some years until additional benefits of VT-x and SVM (such as nested paging) may outweigh the performance penalty. VirtualBox will continue to support the latest CPU enhancements and already today, you benefit from VT-x when running guest operating systems such as OS/2 Warp which need rarely-used processor features. In general, with VT-x enabled much less virtualization code from VirtualBox has to be executed which can result in a more reliable system in case there are problems. So if you run into an issue, we recommend to compare the results to a VT-x enabled VM.

In practice, I see little difference between having it enabled and not, honestly. The only applications I've really tested were Virtualbox and vmware, so YMMV depending on what software you intend to use.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Yuck, so it sounds like this VT hardware acceleration isn't all that beneficial to begin with.

I'm using Virtualbox at the moment with the full software emulated virtual machine, but thought that a switch to the Linux KVM with possible hardware acceleration would be significantly faster. It sounds quite likely that the difference may not be noticeable. Maybe I could measure it in benchmarks, but not really see a practical benefit that would make it worth a CPU purchase on a fairly new machine.

Thanks for the advice, and saving me from a bit of disappointment! (Y)

[bsquirle]

Well to be honest, we only use processors with VT-extensions to run Windows VM's at work.

That does make a difference.

For linux I use Xen's paravirtualisation technologies.

I've used linux in vmware before and I can't say its as demanding as Windows in a VM.

Therefor I don't think you'll benefit that much from a new cpu (ofc I don't know what you are going to do in the vm).

[markwolfe Veteran]

^^^ Yeah, in Linux, Xen and KVM seem to be the two hot technologies in this field. Fedora/RedHat seems to favor Xen, and Ubuntu (my current distro) seems to favor KVM.

In any regards, my application is simple: testing & minor development work for Shift Linux on my Linux box. So, Linux host and Linux guest. No fancy server stuff, and no real connection between the host & guest are required. Pretty basic, I would think.

It seems that it would not be worth the money to buy a new CPU for this (and not like I have another compatible PC to throw my existing Core2Duo into to provide a two-PC upgrade - which would make this upgrade a bit more palatable).

I appreciate everyone's advice on this, and it certainly seems that "not worth the cost and effort" is the theme. Now, if I had this in mind when I was buying the PC, I would have gone with a VT-enabled CPU, as it would not have been any extra effort or waste for me, and maybe just a slight cost difference to get this feature.

Ahhhh... hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

[tsupersonic]

On topic of virtualization, I have a question. I have an AMD Turion (single core) that doesn't support this, yet I notice no difference when running VM apps. I run a VM on a daily basis, I usually run a VM of Vista on an XP host. What exactly does this virtualization technology do in processors?

[Ci7]

On topic of virtualization, I have a question. I have an AMD Turion (single core) that doesn't support this, yet I notice no difference when running VM apps. I run a VM on a daily basis, I usually run a VM of Vista on an XP host. What exactly does this virtualization technology do in processors?

lowering VM IO overhead i suppose ?

[markwolfe Veteran]

On topic of virtualization, I have a question. I have an AMD Turion (single core) that doesn't support this, yet I notice no difference when running VM apps. I run a VM on a daily basis, I usually run a VM of Vista on an XP host. What exactly does this virtualization technology do in processors?

Near as I can figure, it allows a host to give a guest more direct access to hardware, which should increase speed in theory, since less software virtualization would have to be done.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_virtualization

[tsupersonic]

Yeah I tried a VM of Vista on a Core 2 Duo E8300 (or E8400) and it supports the IVT, and I noticed no difference between the Core 2 and my laptop, so I was kind of confused; I thought it would be faster on the Core 2.