E8190 vs E8200 Same but Different

[21stHermit]

I was looking over the C2D 45nm "Wolfdale" line and the offering by Intel of the near twin E8190 and E8200 puzzled me. They appear to be identical except that the E8190 lacks Virtualization & Trusted Execution. What market segment would not want these "features"?

Here's a Wikipedia lnk with more info.

Thanks

 

[PCTC2]

Most of the home desktop market DON'T know what Virtualization Tech is so why implement it when they won't use it?
And with trusted execution, it's a security implementation that I guess Intel just wanted to eliminate for a budget processor. As Intel states on their page, it's mainly for office platforms and not the average home user.

 

[Pabster]

The 8190 will be cheaper (duh) and the average Joe could care less about VT or TE. In fact, 99% wouldn't even know what they are, let alone care that the chip doesn't support them.

If VT/TE is important to you, skip the 8190.

 

[21stHermit]

Thanks PCTC2 and Pabster.

But both of you missed the essence of my post. The E8190 is NOT cheaper than the E8200. It is also the only member of the E8xxx family w/o Virtualization & Trusted Execution. Therefore their must be a reason Intel created this loner.

Does anyone know why?

 

[Avalon]

If it's not cheaper than the E8200, then there was no point in creating the processor if it's the same. Are you positive they're going to be the same price? I'm not sure I'd trust Wiki here, since they also list a Wolfdale 3M processor as selling cheaper than the cheapest Wolfdale C2D, even despite the cache reduction.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: Avalon
If it's not cheaper than the E8200, then there was no point in creating the processor if it's the same. Are you positive they're going to be the same price? I'm not sure I'd trust Wiki here, since they also list a Wolfdale 3M processor as selling cheaper than the cheapest Wolfdale C2D, even despite the cache reduction.

NO, I'm not positive. Just stands to reason that it would cost Intel more than its worth to create a loner. Hard to believe it's cheaper for Intel to delete this relatively trivial feature from a whole family of CPU's.

Therefore it's my guess Intel has a niche market for this, what is that niche market?

 

[PCTC2]

I'm pretty sure Wiki has it wrong here. Either that, or the consumer part market will never see the E8190 and it will be sold to companies like Dell and Gateway.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: PCTC2
Either that, or the consumer part market will never see the E8190 and it will be sold to companies like Dell and Gateway.

I could buy into that explanation. Those kinds of volumes would easily justify a one-off part.

FWIW, I have my eye on the E8400, not a Quad, looks like the sweet spot in that family.

Thanks

 

[petkow]

hi guys
i was just looking for the same answer. i have a feeling 8190 may have a niche market but im not fully sure. Im planning buying one because its the only one that lacks not only the VT but the TXT. And im one of those guys who tries to avoid all kind of Trusted Platform technology because I feel it may be disadvantageous to give up some of your control over your pc. For example companies can force you using and buying certain product combinations, software activation etc. On the other hand this also depend on the mobo if it has the TPM chip or not, but it may be also a good idea to not let the cpu use these instructions.

 

[DSF]

If I'm not mistaken, they did the same thing when they created the E6540. It's the same as the E6550, but it's missing Trusted Execution. It doesn't answer your question of why, but I'm just throwing that out there.

 

[Xvys]

It is hard to speculate why the E6540 (E6550) and E8190 (E8200) are listed for the same 1000 lot price as these similiar units which include TXT and VT?

Perhaps Dell & Gateway can get the E8190 for a few dollars cheaper in 100k or 1M lots than the full featured E8200??

 

[n7]

Yup, those kinda SKUs will more than likely be OEM only, & likely hard to get ahold of if you're not HP or Gateway or etc...

 

[initialised]

I can think of a good reason to remove VT, especially if this is a CPU targetted at office PCs. Its more likely a request from network security specialists to Dell et al that has been passed on to Intel and from a security perspective I would expect that the TE modification stops this from being disabled rather than omiting the system.

Preventing the use of virtualisation makes it harder for induhviduals to circumvent network monitoring by running applications on virtual machines and forcing TE allows greater control over the applications that users can run.

 

[21stHermit]

Originally posted by: initialised
I can think of a good reason to remove VT, especially if this is a CPU targetted at office PCs. Its more likely a request from network security specialists to Dell et al that has been passed on to Intel and from a security perspective I would expect that the TE modification stops this from being disabled rather than omiting the system.

Preventing the use of virtualisation makes it harder for induhviduals to circumvent network monitoring by running applications on virtual machines and forcing TE allows greater control over the applications that users can run.

At last a reply I can appreciate.

If I understand, removing these "features" prevent individuals from blocking network administrators from accessing/controling PC's on the network? In other words Big Brother is still watching.

So Trusted Execution which is a good thing on a home PC, is not on a PC in a corporate environment.

Thank you initialised and welcome to AT. :beer:

 

[lopri]

I'm not sure about Trusted Execution, but a problem with the suggested reason for disabled Virtualization is, that a virtual PC can still run without hardware assistance. Not supporting hardware Virtualization doesn't equal to keeping users from running a virtual machine.

 

[secretanchitman]

honestly, theres no point for intel to release those non vt chips (pentium d 925 comes to mind). they only clutter the oem market. honestly, i havent seen much of a price difference to go for the non vt chip than the vt enabled chip.

 

[Bllyfun1]

I just ordered a system from Dell with E8200 procesor. 1st email listed system with E8200. 2nd email listed E8190, which brought me to this forum.

Not sure if I should be really angry (1st reaction) or not.

Planning to use system for music recording.

Any insight?

Thanks,

Bill

 

[Winterpool]

I recall some time ago there was a lot of anger amongst Chinese geeks because they were getting systems with Core 2 Duo processors lacking these features. I'm not sure who was the OEM responsible (Dell?), but there was some of switcheroo going on, similar to Bllyfun1's plight. At the time I was astonished that it was even possible to get variants lacking VT, etc (these weren't Allendales).

As often happens, the Chinese felt some foreign conspiracy was at work, dumping inferior kit on the Middle Kingdom. Of course desktop virtualisation is a questionable requirement at present, but I too am reassured by the simple existence of VT in my Wolfdale chip... I of course would find lack of VT completely unacceptable in a modern server part.

To Bllyfun1: From a practical point of view (ie desktop apps, your music recording), it's unlikely that lack of 'Vanderpool' or Trusted Execution will make much of a difference. However, one should always get what you order (and pay for). I'm curious as to how the system looked (ie the cpu idenitification) when you made the order, and which Dell site you placed it with.

 

[Bllyfun1]

I placed the order @Dell.com. Walked right in the front door.

There was no mention of the E8190 as a possible CPU on the site and all of the Order Summary information, as well as the Order Acknowledgement email listed this:
Vostro 400, Intel® Core?2 Duo Proc E8200 (2.66GHz,6MB L2Cache,1333FSB)

The Order Confirmation email, arriving in the same minute, but after the 1st listed:
Vostro 400, Intel Core2 Duo E8190 (2.66GHz, 1333FSB, 6MB L2)
with no mention of the switch.

I will be speaking to Dell in the morning.

If the only difference is a little less big brother, I am all for it, but I don' know that for sure.
Can you tell me any current or future need for the omitted features?

Thanks for the information...

 

[Bllyfun1]

I found this on the Intel site.

A little technical for me...

http://softwarecommunity.intel...Virtualization/544.htm

 

[Winterpool]

To me (and I think most geeks) 'Vanderpool' (virtualisation tech) is a fairly compelling feature, even if the chip in question is going into a 'desktop' computer. To make a long story short, though virtualisation has been around a long time, it's a fairly big pain in the arse to implement on x86 architecture. This was VMware's great achievement. Both Intel and AMD have produced supplemental hardware in their better cpus that will greatly speed up x86 virtualisation performance: this is pretty much a prerequisite for the serious virtualisation offerings using hypervisors (VMware ESX, Microsoft's forthcoming Hyper-V, etc). You can learn more on AnandTech's new IT site.

Aside from the matter of principle, it's a good idea to get the full E8200 because 1.) like many geeks you might eventually repurpose your desktop cpu to a server role, and virtualisation will be well nigh universal in servers soon. 2.) You never know when virtualisation might become popular on desktops. I'm already wondering whether I should run VMs rather than instal more partitions to test alternate operating systems and configurations...

 

[CP5670]

I use Virtual PC (which makes use of VT) fairly often on my home machine for running various old programs. I don't know how much VT actually helps, but it's nice to have it available.

 

[Bllyfun1]

Update from BllyFun1:

After a 1 hour, 45 minute phone call with Dell and, 5 different people,
multiple run-arounds, ex. "If I told you there was no difference, would you believe me"? -MZ

Turns out all that Dell has is E8190, despite E8200 being listed on web site.

My options were to take it or leave it. I suggested they give me the next processor "up" in the family and we argeed that I should get the E8400 for an additional $20, rather than $60.

It was quite a hassle, but, bouyed by the advice/info given here, I was able to come out pretty well on this.

Thanks for the speedy responses and info.

Bill

P.S. This link was also "good ammo" to have on hand for the discussion with the "techies" at Dell.
http://www.intel.com/products/...prod_core2duo+tab_spec

 

[Winterpool]

That's brilliant: the E8400 is an excellent processor and probably amongst the top three favourite cpus amongst the enthusiast community.

It's ridiculous that Dell is selling E8190s (and only E8190s) as E8200s. This news should be spread by crier and whisper far and wide.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: lopri
I'm not sure about Trusted Execution, but a problem with the suggested reason for disabled Virtualization is, that a virtual PC can still run without hardware assistance. Not supporting hardware Virtualization doesn't equal to keeping users from running a virtual machine.

While it is true that you can run a virtual machine without hardware support, it is more difficult and limited and requires software loaded on the machine to do so. So in effect by using hardware that doesn't support virtualization AND controlling what software is/(can be) loaded on a machine, they can effectively prevent users from running a virtual machine.

And I beleive this is why this chip is offered without these features, at the request of corporate security guru's