• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sandy Bridge-E VT-d Virtualization broken w/C1 stepping

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
bryanW1995 said:
If that statement is true then why do 2600 and 2500 have vt-d enabled? It's clearly an issue for some people, though I agree that it doesn't make sense to further delay the sb-e release for something like this that will only affect a small subset of the potential purchasers.
Click to expand...

Even if its enabled on them, no one is expecting people who buy a SB-E to care about VT-D. They are going to install benchmark apps, overclock it, start playing games.

Its like saying someone is going to put a SLi/crossfire setup and care about how much electric bill will be extra each month.
 
grkM3 said:
sneaky intel!!!

they lock it out of overclocking power houses to force people that need it to buy higher core count xeons.

If a 2600k had it eneable and were overclocked to 4.7 ghz it would mop the floor with a quad core xeon using vtd
Click to expand...

Even if VT-d were an option on the 2600K, it wouldn't amount to anything; customers buying hardware for virtualization don't intend or even want to overclock it. Stability is numero uno in virtualization.

Single-socket limitation ranks way higher on the list of concerns than an unlocked multiplier, for virtualization, so this is a non-issue for this market demographic.
 
moriz said:
fine then, let me rephrase: it is entirely reasonable to expect intel to release a flagship product that has all of its features enabled.

happy now?
Click to expand...

Actually, as I recall, there was speculation that Hyper-Threading was physically present on Conroe (and subsequent Core2 processors), but was disabled because it negatively affected performance.

It is completely reasonable to disable features that don't work properly.
 
Definitely disappointing, but if you NEED VT-d then waiting a month or two will probably not kill you.
 
Tanclearas said:
Actually, as I recall, there was speculation that Hyper-Threading was physically present on Conroe (and subsequent Core2 processors), but was disabled because it negatively affected performance.

It is completely reasonable to disable features that don't work properly.
Click to expand...

i think this is pure speculation, because HT was a branch off netburst P4 arch.

C2D took us one step back sideways and then up.
P3's did not have HT, and C2D is a offspring of P3's and lappy processors more so then P4's.
 
aigomorla said:
i think this is pure speculation, because HT was a branch off netburst P4 arch.

C2D took us one step back sideways and then up.
P3's did not have HT, and C2D is a offspring of P3's and lappy processors more so then P4's.
Click to expand...

Aigo, it seems you know a lot about Intels design teams, is it true that Intel ping pongs and tick tocks designs between Oregon & Haifa? I believe that Oregon makes the big architectural designs and the Israeli Haifa team optimizes and pushes the envelope on that.
 
grimpr said:
Aigo, it seems you know a lot about Intels design teams, is it true that Intel ping pongs and tick tocks designs between Oregon & Haifa? I believe that Oregon makes the big architectural designs and the Israeli Haifa team optimizes and pushes the envelope on that.
Click to expand...

Oregon are the risk takers, Israel not so much. Be it by culture or by management directive. But understand that Andy Grove was Jewish and lived through the time of the holocaust in Europe, no surprise that as a founder and eventual CEO of Intel, Intel has made persistent and significant investments in that region.

It is unfortunate, be it coincidence or actually by design, that Intel and AMD are seemingly delineated by the geopolitical Israeli/Jewish versus Arab/Muslim moorings.
 
would you guys go with a an amd x6 1045t or an intel i3 2100 for running many virtual machines?

I like amd for the cores/and their virtualization is all in one. But with the i3 I could upgrade pretty easily in the future to an i7
 
Last edited:
mrjoltcola said:
Even if VT-d were an option on the 2600K, it wouldn't amount to anything; customers buying hardware for virtualization don't intend or even want to overclock it. Stability is numero uno in virtualization.

Single-socket limitation ranks way higher on the list of concerns than an unlocked multiplier, for virtualization, so this is a non-issue for this market demographic.
Click to expand...

What ? No-one has a wet dream of running their favorite linux distro natively and loading up windows-x in their favorite virtualizer to play crysis-n ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top