2500k / 2600k and VMs

[Tsaar]

The upgrade itch is nearly overwhelming, and I am considering purchasing a SB chip at my local MC. As a gamer and moderate overclocker, Ivy Bridge versus Sandy Bridge seems to make little difference.

I am also very anal about web surfing in general, and do most of it through Ubuntu VMs.

Will using a 2600k with Hyperthreading increase my VM performance significantly? I do watch some 1080p YouTube videos from time-to-time in my VM, and my q6600 (@3.2 GHz) runs kind of choppy and also nearly nearly pushes my CPU to 100% across all 4 cores.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

First let me say something. With the unlocked Intel® Core™ i5-2500K, Intel Core i5-2550K, the Intel Core i7-2600K, and Intel Core i7-2700K all do not support VT-d (Virtulization with Directed I/O). So if you are looking for VT-d support you would want to look at one of the higher end models like the Intel Core i7-3930K to find that support.

Now as to the value of hyper-threading towards VMs I would say you wouldnt get any value out of it in the VM but as far as doing something else on the computer on top of running the VMs you would find it easier to do additional multi-tasking with hyper-threading.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[dma0991]

If you're going from a Q6600 to a SB, you could definitely feel some improvement. As for the Core i7 2600K, I am uncertain that you'll benefit much if any in a guest OS. You'll have to find out whether your VM client is able to support HT, I'm using Virtualbox and have yet to see that feature so far.

My recommendation is an overclocked Core i5 2500K.

 

[Tsaar]

Thanks for the replies. I am using VMware Player.

 

[greenhawk]

VM will proberly not like the hyperthreading, but it should like the extra cache that the 2600/2700 has over the 2500.

That being said, if poorly setup VM will cause issues regardless of underlying hardware. by poorly setup I mean having running VM's that need more cpus than you have or has a total ram larger than your total physical ram (and still needing to count the ram the host OS uses.

 

[Tsaar]

VM will proberly not like the hyperthreading, but it should like the extra cache that the 2600/2700 has over the 2500.

That being said, if poorly setup VM will cause issues regardless of underlying hardware. by poorly setup I mean having running VM's that need more cpus than you have or has a total ram larger than your total physical ram (and still needing to count the ram the host OS uses.

Like I said, my VMs are really just used for web browsing and some video.

My q6600 can do this, it just always feels slightly...sluggish I guess would describe it. Like a game running at 15-20 FPS, it is playable, just isn't very fluid.

 

[nyker96]

I went from a cpu e7200 that has no VM support to one x4 620 that has, I must say the difference isn't night and day. I do feel things are slightly snappier when running xp vm + linux vm at same time. btw it also depends on the VM software I guess, vbox seems not to take advatage of the hardware support as much but vmware it feels faster on the x4. But again it could be the extra cores that's giving it the boost. without some detailed benchmarks I cannot say.

 

[StinkyPinky]

You create a VM just to do web surfing??

 

[Tsaar]

You create a VM just to do web surfing??

I am anal about web browsing security. What can I say.

 

[GammaLaser]

I know VMware Player will recognize HT in the sense that I can allocate 8 cores to a VM on a quad core machine w/ HT. However I've generally only allocated 1-2 cores on a VMware Player VM so can't really comment on how well HT works in the VM. Overall though Sandy Bridge 2500k+ is a good boost over a Core 2 Quad.

 

[blckgrffn]

Lots of ram and an SSD for the VMs - then any SB will do...

HT isn't going to make it magically much better.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Go with a Xeon chip and a crapton of RAM if you're really that hardcore about running 10 million VMs for web browsing

 

[Tsaar]

Go with a Xeon chip and a crapton of RAM if you're really that hardcore about running 10 million VMs for web browsing

That is obviously overkill lol. I just want a smooth experience on *ONE* VM. q6600 and 8GB of RAM is not smooth enough.

It sounds like hyperthreading will have a minimal impact. I will stick with a 2500k or the IB equivalent if I have the patience to hold out.

Thanks for the help.

 

[dma0991]

I am anal about web browsing security. What can I say.

You could try using Sandboxie to isolate your browser from your original files. It isn't better than using a VM but it works pretty well and not much of a resource hogger.

 

[RavenSEAL]

That is obviously overkill lol. I just want a smooth experience on *ONE* VM. q6600 and 8GB of RAM is not smooth enough.

It sounds like hyperthreading will have a minimal impact. I will stick with a 2500k or the IB equivalent if I have the patience to hold out.

Thanks for the help.

Well, since you just want one. Just get a 2500K and call it a day.

IMO, the Virtualization technology on AMDs part is pretty solid, so an FX-8120/50 isn't a bad choice if you can get it cheaper.

 

[greenhawk]

I just want a smooth experience on *ONE* VM. q6600 and 8GB of RAM is not smooth enough.

I am sort of interested to know what the VM hardware setup is. I've used my q6600 with 4GB and had not issues running two VM's (was running game servers). But then I had set each up with 1 cpu and 512MB of ram each so to not effect the host system.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Will using a 2600k with Hyperthreading increase my VM performance significantly? I do watch some 1080p YouTube videos from time-to-time in my VM, and my q6600 (@3.2 GHz) runs kind of choppy and also nearly nearly pushes my CPU to 100% across all 4 cores.

You might increase your performance somewhat, but unless Ubuntu has made some changes of the past year or so, I doubt it will ever be fluid. The default Ubuntu configuration doesn't seem to use any hardware acceleration for video playback, so the processor is completely brute-forcing it. The problem gets more severe as the display resolution increases.

You may want to see if there is some other type of video playback software that will work faster, but if you're going to be watching videos in your VM, you're probably better off running Windows in your VM.

You may be able to get a performance increase be reconfiguring your VM. Host-based hypervisors like VMware Player receive processor time from the host OS, and have a more difficult time scheduling multi-processor VMs. Switching your VM to single virtual CPU may improve performance.

I am also very anal about web surfing in general, and do most of it through Ubuntu VMs.

Anal, huh? :awe:

 

[Ratman6161]

I am sort of interested to know what the VM hardware setup is. I've used my q6600 with 4GB and had not issues running two VM's (was running game servers). But then I had set each up with 1 cpu and 512MB of ram each so to not effect the host system.

I went from a Core 2 Quad 6600 with 8GB RAM to a i7 2600K with 16 GB. I don't use Ubuntu but I do have several Windows 7 X64 and Server 2008 R2 VM's I use. All work fantastically on the 2600K though keep in mind I now have twice as much RAM too. This is in VMWare Workstation rather than player. Basically I can do work on my VM's that is so fast/fluid that you wouldn't even notice you were in a VM.

Some things I have found work well regardless of CPU.
1. Have lots of RAM
2. Run VM's from a different physical disk than the host OS runs from. I have a 60GB SSD that boots my main OS (W7 x64) and a 640GB hard disk for data. Then I have a separate 500 GB disk used exclusively for running VM's. When I have VM's that I like to run at the same time I have one on the 500 GB disk and one on the 640.

Weather on the q6600 or the 2600K the single biggest improvement I saw in perceived performance was from the multiple disk drives and keeping the VM's and host OS from competing for the drive.

Anyway, for your usage of mainly doing web browsing in the VM, you can't really go wrong with the 2600K though I can't say how much the HT is helping as I've never used a 2500K.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

It helps a lot if you run a lot of VMs that actually try to utilize CPU. On a 2500K I could run 5-6 before the CPU maxed out at 100%... on a e3-1230 (similar to an i7-2600) I can run 9 doing the same exact thing they did on the 2500K before the CPU maxes out. For one VM, it won't matter.

And also, definitely go with a SSD for VMs. You could even buy one large SSD and fit the OS and all VMs onto it. SSDs are the greatest thing ever for VMs imo. I piled all 9 on my e3-1230 onto single SSD, and they boot extremely quickly one after another, with almost zero lag. Simply put, the disk access that slowed VMs down are completely a thing of the past with SSDs, thanks to the near zero access times of them.

 

[Tsaar]

Thanks for all the answers guys.

I did pick up a 256 GB Sammy 830, but not using it until I get the rest of my parts.

I keep wishing Corsair would release 8GB sticks of low profile Vengeance RAM for 32 GB of RAM.

 

[power_hour]

Ran into this same question during my build. I chose the 2600K. Tested it under VMWare Player and Oracle VirtualBox. Both run with HT perfectly. CPUs barely stress with 6 or more running at same time. I use mine to run test labs for my Server Admin work/studies.

And the SSD is an equally excellent choice.

 

[jessica86]

Hi,
I have 2.9 GHZ and its not running Office correctly. What should i do? should i change or upgrade Ram??

 

[chubbyfatazn]

You're aware that MC just chopped the price of the 2600K, right? Down to $200. Not sure if the $50 off any mobo promotion is still there, but from what I've read it is. $180 versus $200, just go for the 2600K and call it a day.

Edit: Oops, didn't realize this was an old thread. Your issues are bigger if you think your Office installation is related to clock speed/RAM issues.

 

[TheRyuu]

I do watch some 1080p YouTube videos from time-to-time in my VM, and my q6600 (@3.2 GHz) runs kind of choppy and also nearly nearly pushes my CPU to 100% across all 4 cores.

Well there's not much you can do about flash sucking. You claim to be paranoid about web surfing but then also complain about the sluggishness of a virtual machine. I'm not saying it's impossible to have both but you're putting yourself in that situation so understand that the VM is never going to be as fast as the host.

Can SMT (HT) improve guest OS performance with computationally intensive stuff? Provided you give the guest OS an equal number of cpu's as the host has logical processors it can (if you can use them all from the guest) but for your situation I wouldn't really think of giving the guest that many cpu's (less is more, also vmware player is limited to 4 cpu's for a guest I believe). Also the guest is not going to be able to make use of the hardware video acceleration for flash video playback so (because flash sucks) I'm not sure if you'll be able to view 1080p smooth regardless of the processor in a VM.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but you're also gaining EPT (extended page table) support (was introduced on nehalem) which would likely cut down on VM overhead, along with other architectural improvements since the q6600 (e.g. reduction in context switching time with vt-x).

As far as the processor is concerned my suggestion would be to simply buy what you can afford. If you can afford the 2600k then why not, it's not like HT is going to hurt (you can always disable it but there really isn't any good reason too). HT itself is not going to improve VM performance since you're not going to be using that many cpu's in the VM anyway, it's all the other stuff that has changed since the q6600 that's going to improve your VM performance (various architectural improvements along with the fact that the 2600k is (a lot) faster than a q6600).

For VM settings I would definitly say that less is more when the number of cpu's is concerned (at least on my i7-920). If I gave a guest os (linux) 8 cpu's to match the number of logical processors in my host (windows 7) then flash playback wouldn't be as smooth and the sound would be weird. Giving the guest 2 cpu's all was well again within reason for a virtual machine, both are slower than direct playback on the host. I'm not sure if enabling 3d acceleration would be beneficial but I think it made the experience smoother and reduced cpu load. I think that vmware is likely going to be better/faster than vbox but I can't say for certain that's the case when it comes to desktop smoothness (other than being free vbox really doesn't have much going for it and even vmware has player to compete in the free market).

Sorry this turned into a rather long (and boring) rant but the tl;dr version is:
-Yes you're crazy for using a VM just for web surfing.
-No the VM is never going to be as fast as the host (deal with it).
-Yes upgrading will likely improve your VM experience but HT won't be the cause of the improvement.
-Buy what you can afford, HT isn't going to hurt anything.
-Why not just run noscript, adblock, and (optionally) https everywhere if you're that paranoid and keep your browser up to date (chrome dev channel)?