Best value dual core CPU for virtual machines and linux

[motiv8d]

I am looking at a new rig that will run linux primarily with Xen and/or Vmware and Windows XP/2003/Linux guests. I have read a little about virtualization that Intel has on current Pentium D's and that AMD is yet to release. So I am trying to work out what would be better.
1. AMD Dual Core (probably Opteron 165) overclocked to 2.6+
2. Intel Pentium D 950 DUAL CORE Processor - 3.4Ghz EMT64 XD SPEEDSTEP 2x2MB L2 CACHE LGA775 800FSB w/ Virtualization - overclocked to whatever is reasonable and cost effective for this chip.
The 950 is about 10% cheaper atm.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, or if there exists an even better option (eg say a 3800/4200 would be better at current available stepping for example) that I have not considered please let me know.
I will need dual head and SATA RAID 1, but I doubt that will have any bearing on the chip selection. I was thinking of Lanparty NF4 Ultra-D if going with 165. For Intel would have no idea what would be a good board to allow oc.
Also if anyone knows, how much of a difference would the virtualization feature actually make in real use?
Thanks in advance

 

[AntiStatic]

Celeron D is the best value dual core.

 

[ted]

Are you smoking or something, Celeron D is not dual core cpu. the cheaper one is Pentium D 805 but with cripple memory subsystem. Go for Athlon 64 X2 3800+ or Opteron 165, VMWare or Linux love 64 Bit, trust me i always using vmware, you need at least 2Gb or more too work with VMWARE.

 

[motiv8d]

Thanks AntiStatic, but I should have clarified, around the $300 mark. It needs to be best value but still quite capable of running virtual machines with good performance.

 

[motiv8d]

Ta Ted. Yeh I was looking at 2x1GB regardless of which chip. Have been leaning toward the 165. Intel is EMT64 so that should be good for vmware/xen/linux too? Hoping that someone on here has experience with both platforms and virtual machines especially with the virtualization that Intel has. If only the 165 had it already

 

[stevty2889]

The 950 should work well for your needs, and is pretty evenly matched with the X2 3800+. If you were overclocking I would definatly go with the X2, but I'm guessing you won't be, so I would go with the 950. Not sure how much the virtualization helps, but I think you need a version of Vmware or which ever program you use that supports virtualization to take advantage of it. Both have 64bit so thats no problem.

 

[motiv8d]

Will definitely be overclocking, whether X2 or Intel. So unless someone else comes in here and says that virtualization in the Intel will make a huge difference then I think I will go the 165.

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: AntiStatic
Celeron D is the best value dual core.

Quick, flush it down the toilet; a big bust is going down tonight in your town.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: motiv8d
I am looking at a new rig that will run linux primarily with Xen and/or Vmware and Windows XP/2003/Linux guests. I have read a little about virtualization that Intel has on current Pentium D's and that AMD is yet to release. So I am trying to work out what would be better.
1. AMD Dual Core (probably Opteron 165) overclocked to 2.6+
2. Intel Pentium D 950 DUAL CORE Processor - 3.4Ghz EMT64 XD SPEEDSTEP 2x2MB L2 CACHE LGA775 800FSB w/ Virtualization - overclocked to whatever is reasonable and cost effective for this chip.
The 950 is about 10% cheaper atm.
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, or if there exists an even better option (eg say a 3800/4200 would be better at current available stepping for example) that I have not considered please let me know.
I will need dual head and SATA RAID 1, but I doubt that will have any bearing on the chip selection. I was thinking of Lanparty NF4 Ultra-D if going with 165. For Intel would have no idea what would be a good board to allow oc.
Also if anyone knows, how much of a difference would the virtualization feature actually make in real use?
Thanks in advance

Chips are pretty equal in performance, with a slight edge to the Intel in most tests. Curious about where you find the Pentium D 950 cheaper than the Opteron 165, as Newegg has the 165 cheaper by around $20.

Intel runs HOT. Remember that. I don't know if noise matters to you.

Don't know which Intel mobo is best for overclocking - there seems to be a lesser enthusiast crowd for Intel than AMD.

Have you asked this question on any Linux forums?

 

[stevty2889]

The stock heatsink probably won't be good enough for much overclocking on the 950. The only motherboards that have gotten good overclocks on the 9xx series have been the P5WD2 premium, and P5WD2-E premium, both of which are $200+ motherboards. I missed it the first time when you said you were looking to overclock, so that changes things a bit, I would go with the opty and overclock it, because you would need an expensive motherboard and some luck to reach the same performance of the OC'd opty with the Intel setup. Opty will likely reach anywhere from 2.5ghz-2.9ghz, which would need a pentium-d to reach about 4ghz-4.5ghz for equivilant performance.

 

[zephyrprime]

I've used VMWare under windows before with a windows client OS and let me tell you, it is slow slow slow. No matter how much you OC, you're only have a fraction of the full speed of your computer available to you. I've also used MS VirtualPC. In one instance it was really slow and in a different instance it was pretty good so I can't figure out exactly what was going on there. Also a single client OS on it will try to use 100% processor time even if the client os is idle. Xen is supposed to be a lot faster but I haven't ever used it. I haven't tried vmware under linux either.

I would definitely recommend getting a processor with virtualization technology. Get the 9xx or wait for pacifica but don't get a non-virtualized processor.

edit: there is supposed to be a faster VMWare now that runs on native hardware somehow but I don't know anything about that product.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Hard Ball

Originally posted by: AntiStatic
Celeron D is the best value dual core.

Quick, flush it down the toilet; a big bust is going down tonight in your town.

:roll:

Please take your flame bait elsewhere.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

edit: there is supposed to be a faster VMWare now that runs on native hardware somehow but I don't know anything about that product.

yeah its the top end product that cost thousands of dollars. wanna bet he won;t use it.

anyway i have used xen in the past and while its ok on a non virtualiosation machine you won;t be able to run windows (or anyother OS unmodified) without VR support so if you must buy now and you wanna use xen then your best choice is PD 950

 

[EatSpam]

I just built a machine like this, no overclocking, as I want stability....

Specs:
Pentium D 950
P5MT-M - needs BIOS update to support 9xx series
4x1gig Corsair PC5400 DDR2
Areca 1210 4 port SATA RAID card
4x WD 250GB RAID Edition drives

running Centos 4.3 w/VMWare server...very solid and very fast...I'm running 3 Windows 2003 server vms, including one with Exchange plus a Fedora Core 5 VM.

although you might want to wait for Conroe... faster, lower power consumption...

Something to keep in mind - virtualization is, for the most part, a server function. Don't OC your server.... build a seperate machine for gaming and overclock that. Besides, you don't want to be running VMs while you're gaming...

 

[ND40oz]

I'm pretty sure none of VMwares current offerings take advantage of Intel VT at this time. The only thing I've found that does is Virtual Server R2 SP1 beta. Unfortunately, it's still a beta so you shouldn't use it on production boxes.

I run it on my 930 and it does make quite a difference in the boot and install times of Server 2003 R2. It does have it's limitations, such as it supports 64 bit host OS, but you can't run a 64 bit virtual box. It also doesnt support VT once the virtual box is up and running a Windows based OS. It supposedly uses VT on linux based OS's but I haven't tested it yet.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ND40oz
I'm pretty sure none of VMwares current offerings take advantage of Intel VT at this time. The only thing I've found that does is Virtual Server R2 SP1 beta. Unfortunately, it's still a beta so you shouldn't use it on production boxes.

VMWare Server, as of Beta 3, has support for VT. It'll be fully supported in the release version as well. I'm not sure when Pacifica support will be added in.

Really, SP1 beta supports it? I wasn't expecting VT support on Virtual Server until 2007.

I run it on my 930 and it does make quite a difference in the boot and install times of Server 2003 R2. It does have it's limitations, such as it supports 64 bit host OS, but you can't run a 64 bit virtual box. It also doesnt support VT once the virtual box is up and running a Windows based OS. It supposedly uses VT on linux based OS's but I haven't tested it yet.

VMWare Server handles 64-bit guests on Intel CPUs with VT - and I think most Opterons as well. Of course, from a cost standpoint, VMWare Server's biggest advantage is that it the host can run Linux - Centos is just like RHEL and is free.