Best ~$200 CPU for Virtualbox VM'ing

[jinjuku]

What is the best CPU around the $200 point for running a virtual machine box? I would assume that main board pricing for either Intel or AMD would be within spitting distance of each other.

Thx,

Jin.

 

[Cerb]

AMD gets you more dedicated cores for the money, with a Phenom II X6 (6 of them). Intel's i5-2500 (K, if you're going to build it) sits right at that price point, and typically offers much more performance per core.

Beyond that, it's a wash, unless you want cheap ECC support, AES-NI support, or have use for far superior performance per core over having more cores. I guess a better way to say that would be as a question: since any modern CPU can run Virtualbox and make use of hardware virtualization support, what are your specific needs per-VM, how many are you going to run, etc.?

Mobo prices aren't quite within spitting distance of each other, but if the extra performance from Intel floats your boat, that shouldn't be a big deal, and you can always get spendy w/ AMD boards, if you want to.

Now, I assume that this is a desktop PC, since you're running Virtualbox, right? If running servers, Xen would be the way to go, and server CPUs might be better fits, depending on needs.

 

[Topweasel]

What is the best CPU around the $200 point for running a virtual machine box? I would assume that main board pricing for either Intel or AMD would be within spitting distance of each other.

Thx,

Jin.

Depends on the VM's you want to run and what performance you expect from them and how many VM's. Instantly my reaction is more cores over single core performance. Which make me point to a PII X6 1055T or something along that line. A 2500 would also make great VM CPU, has its performance should negate a lot of the core advantage that the X6 has. But if your running 4 or more VM's and have them all running tasks at roughly the same time it might hurt the 2500 more then the X6.

This is one of the reasons I am optimistic about BD. 8 Core CPU's at an affordable price means I can emulate a server client representation of my network on same workstation I do all of my other work on.

 

[jinjuku]

AMD gets you more dedicated cores for the money, with a Phenom II X6 (6 of them). Intel's i5-2500 (K, if you're going to build it) sits right at that price point, and typically offers much more performance per core.

Beyond that, it's a wash, unless you want cheap ECC support, AES-NI support, or have use for far superior performance per core over having more cores. I guess a better way to say that would be as a question: since any modern CPU can run Virtualbox and make use of hardware virtualization support, what are your specific needs per-VM, how many are you going to run, etc.?

Mobo prices aren't quite within spitting distance of each other, but if the extra performance from Intel floats your boat, that shouldn't be a big deal, and you can always get spendy w/ AMD boards, if you want to.

Now, I assume that this is a desktop PC, since you're running Virtualbox, right? If running servers, Xen would be the way to go, and server CPUs might be better fits, depending on needs.

Right now it's simply to Virtualize a Win2K Server, Win2003 server and a Vista Desktop. I could see another VM or two in the future...

I guess I should look at something with the ability to support ECC. I have seen people say with the quality of RAM out there that ECC is bringing in greatly diminished returns.

Thx.

 

[Topweasel]

Right now it's simply to Virtualize a Win2K Server, Win2003 server and a Vista Desktop. I could see another VM or two in the future...

I guess I should look at something with the ability to support ECC. I have seen people say with the quality of RAM out there that ECC is bringing in greatly diminished returns.

Thx.

Get a decent 4 core and lots of ram. The problem with Ecc as choosing that forces your hand on Motherboard, CPU, and platform options, all of which come at premiums.

Is this for work or for practice?

 

[jinjuku]

Get a decent 4 core and lots of ram. The problem with Ecc as choosing that forces your hand on Motherboard, CPU, and platform options, all of which come at premiums.

Is this for work or for practice?

I want to VM two servers. So it would be up time dependent. Looking at 12GB of RAM.

 

[Cerb]

Get a decent 4 core and lots of ram. The problem with Ecc as choosing that forces your hand on Motherboard, CPU, and platform options, all of which come at premiums.

Or a performance loss per core, as quite a few affordable AM3/AM3+ mobos support ECC, while Intel only has support on server parts.

 

[grimpr]

ECC support comes at no extra cost with AMD. A 1055t with an ASUS AM3+ board and cheap unregistered ecc ddr1333 from kingston is a robust platform for VMs.

 

[ed29a]

ECC support comes at no extra cost with AMD. A 1055t with an ASUS AM3+ board and cheap unregistered ecc ddr1333 from kingston is a robust platform for VMs.

+1

My workstation/server is running on a 1090T (snagged it on a sale for 150$) with 16 gigs of RAM. I am running around 3-4 VMs, Eclipse, browsers and it acts as my main file server (Raid 6). Never had performance issues, runs like a champ.

 

[bryanW1995]

If you can hold out until sept 19 I'd look at BD for the extra 2 cores, if not then a ph 2 x6.

 

[Mr. President]

In any case, you want to make sure that it supports VT-d in addition to VT-x. Same goes for the motherboard. I was sorely disappointed to find that my 2500K doesn't support VT-d while the regular 2500 does.

If multiple concurrent VMs are your goal then you should possibly give more focus to your hard drive setup than the CPUs. Depending on the usage model, most CPUs are fast enough as is. But, unless you're using SSDs, you might even want a dedicated hard disk for each VM.

Given the choice, I'd go for a six core Phenom II with an SSD over an i7 with platter based hard drives in a heartbeat.

 

[Cerb]

VT-d is only really needed if you are performance-limited by storage or network, due to multiple VMs trying to use too much IO at the same time.

P.S. I had no idea the plain 2500 supported it...that's just weird.

 

[jinjuku]

VT-d is only really needed if you are performance-limited by storage or network, due to multiple VMs trying to use too much IO at the same time.

P.S. I had no idea the plain 2500 supported it...that's just weird.

AMD's AMD-Vi is equivalent from what I am reading....

 

[ed29a]

AMD's AMD-Vi is equivalent from what I am reading....

Yes and some 890FX boards support it.

 

[Mr. President]

VT-d is only really needed if you are performance-limited by storage or network, due to multiple VMs trying to use too much IO at the same time.

P.S. I had no idea the plain 2500 supported it...that's just weird.

Ya, I mentioned it more as a means of future proofing. It's not quite necessary but it may be a good thing to have in a couple of years for running multiple concurrent VMs. Especially since he's building a dedicated VM box.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

For VT-d support in a desktop environment you need focus on the normal processors like the Intel® Core™ i3-2100, Intel Core i5-2400 and Intel Core i7-2600 (none of the unlocked processors like the Intel Core i5-2500K will support VT-d). Also you need to match that up with a motherboard that support VT-d, the most common of those boards is the Intel Desktop Board DQ67SW or DQ67OW. There are some other Q67 boards from other manufacturers that may have this feature enabled on them like Gigabyte and Asus but you will have to check with them to make sure that they do support VT-d.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[bryanW1995]

What's with the tiny font? And thanks for the clarification.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

What's with the tiny font? And thanks for the clarification.

Sorry Bryan, I always write my posts that are more then a line long in word and then cut and paste. In word I use Calibri at a 11 font size but some times when I cut and paste it changes it.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Sorry Bryan, I always write my posts that are more then a line long in word and then cut and paste. In word I use Calibri at a 11 font size but some times when I cut and paste it changes it.

Don't you mean copy/paste? And do you have pre-prepared responses for the various forums?

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

Don't you mean copy/paste? And do you have pre-prepared responses for the various forums?

Ok copy and paste. I am one of those people that think faster then I type and it shows up with grammar mistakes and spelling mistakes. By writing the response in word it helps me catch some of those mistakes before I post them. As far as do I use prepared responses? No I don’t. Since I really don’t start new threads only respond to them I need to write each response for the post I am posting on.