e4300 vs. e6300 - Virtualization in real life

[SnakeEyes123]

OK - here's a tough one...

I'm trying to decide between the e4300 and e6300 processor. I don't do as much gaming as I used to, but want the flexibility of overclocking in the future. Both seem capable.

However, I'm leaning toward the e6300 because it has Intel Virtualization feature. I know gamers don't care about this, but using VMware and Virtual PC and the like is something I'll do frequently. I'm wondering about the real-life advantages this feature provides. I can't find anything concrete out "there" about how much advantage this feature provides. (Again, let's put gaming aside.)

Anyone used VMWare or Virtual PC with these 2 processors?

 

[3LEMENT0]

I'm not really sure how it will help unless the software was coded to take advantage of the feature. I run VMWare and VPC but I have a 2 X 2.8 Xeon with HT(kinda like 4 cores I guess) but with only 2 Gig of RAM and it handles VMWare and VPC well though I think RAM is more important when using VM's since one of my boxes with a Pentium D 9xx with also 2 gig of RAM handles VMWare and VPC well too. I hardly notice the difference with my Xeon machine when running VM's and using them, the only time I notice the speed is when I'm compiling apps or doing heavy database stuff.

 

[SnakeEyes123]

Thanks for the feedback. My understanding is that the Virtual PC 2007 and current or forthcoming versions of VMWare will take advantage of the CPU's virtualization capabilities. How this happens exactly I don't know, but that's the whole reason for creating this feature/functionality.

In any case, I do agree that RAM is undoubtedly the biggest factor in VM usage.

Anyone else?

 

[aka1nas]

Thus far, it was looking like most of the virtualization platforms lost performance when hardware VT was enabled. This is probably more due to poor software support than to any flaw in the actual hardware feature. It's sort of hard to speculate on the actual performance difference of having the feature or not at this point.