What cpu/mobo/mem would you recommend for running multiple VMs and also a gaming rig

[Arkitech]

I'm interesting in building a box that is powerful enough to run at least 1-2 VMs and also still function as a gaming rig. I want to get more familiar with Mac and Linux environments and also experiment with running VM servers over the cloud. These VMs will likely not be critical systems, but I do want them stable and performing well. The other use for this box will be for 1440p gaming and possibly an XBMC server.

Thank you for any suggestions or articles you can share.

UPDATE

1. What YOUR PC will be used for. That means what types of tasks you'll be performing.
Gaming and running VMs



2. What YOUR budget is. A price range is acceptable as long as it's not more than a 20% spread
1000-1400 (less would be better, but I hope not build again for some years)

3. What country YOU will be buying YOUR parts from.
US

4. IF you're buying parts OUTSIDE the US, please post a link to the vendor you'll be buying from.
We can't be expected to scour the internet on your behalf, chasing down deals in your specific country... Again, help us, help YOU.
N/A

5. IF YOU have a brand preference. That means, are you an Intel-Fanboy, AMD-Fanboy, ATI-Fanboy, nVidia-Fanboy, Seagate-Fanboy, WD-Fanboy, etc.
No brand preference, just want the best tech to do the job

6. If YOU intend on using any of YOUR current parts, and if so, what those parts are.
Building from scratch

7. IF YOU plan on overclocking or run the system at default speeds.
Will likely not overclock unless there is some substantial benefit in doing so

8. What resolution, not monitor size, will you be using?
2560x1440

9. WHEN do you plan to build it?
Note that it is usually not cost or time effective to choose your build more than a month before you actually plan to be using it.
Likely in August, but may begin buying parts now if there are any good sales going on

X. Do you need to purchase any software to go with the system, such as Windows or Blu Ray playback software?
Possibly. Need to decide if I should go with Win8 vs Win7 (are there any reasons at the moment to not use Windows 8?)

 

[mfenn]

Running a couple VMs really isn't all that intensive. Your average gaming rig will handle it without trouble. The most that you'll need to do is increase the RAM from the baseline of 8GB to 16GB.

Can you update your post with the answers to these questions?

 

[Cerb]

I would recommend a recent-ish SSD, and not too small, that performs well at higher QDs, to keep both systems humming along nicely when one is stuck updating or otherwise engaging in random reads and writes. On the bright side, that basically means you can get a MX100 of 256GB or larger, and be all set, without worrying about how much value you're getting. I can kind of feel a bit of sluggishness with my Sandisk Ultra Plus 128GB, FI, and see it eaten alive in iotop (I don't use it for VMs, normally, but transferred some to it and checked things out, out of curiosity 🙂). Not bad, but it's a risk that's basically free to mitigate, as cheap as the MX100 is.

If you can afford a 1440p monitor that's acceptable for gaming, your CPU will be good enough to run several VMs. I find my home rig with a Xeon E3-1230V3 and M500 480GB to be noticeably smoother with Virtualbox hogging some CPU and SATA time than my work rig with a Core i5-3570 and 840 Pro 512GB (both using Iastor, both running Windows 7, and I've tried running both with no AV for a few days, to rule that out). If it's not too much money, HT is nice to have. But, it does cost a pretty penny, and it won't be night and day or anything, not having it.

Intel has gotten their caches, and HT, to be good enough now that virtualization really isn't something to spec a CPU for, like it was at least up through Sandy Bridge. If you're making a nice gaming rig, just add some RAM that you don't yet need for games, and you'll be in heaven with your VMs, too.

 

[Cerb]

double (it was edit, like in the miniwindow inside the post...did the planned maintenace fracture space and time in Vbulletin?)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Intel has gotten their caches, and HT, to be good enough now that virtualization really isn't something to spec a CPU for

Other than the fact that Intel's "K" CPUs lack VT-d, which is necessary for VGA pass-through, as I understand it.

 

[Cerb]

Other than the fact that Intel's "K" CPUs lack VT-d, which is necessary for VGA pass-through, as I understand it.

Yes, if you happen to be building a rig specifically to play games virtually that can't be played in the day to day OS. That would be something you would need to spec the mobo for, as well, and set up everything on a supporting hypervisor. Intel basically supports it due to certain classes of professional users either not having access to workstation/server class gear, or not being willing to pay a lot for, that feature (like multi-seat PCs, where savings are kind of the point, and the occasional virtual software developer). I'm sure somebody at Intel wishes AMD hadn't forced them to enable virtualization for mainstream chips at all, years ago 🙂.

 

[Arkitech]

Running a couple VMs really isn't all that intensive. Your average gaming rig will handle it without trouble. The most that you'll need to do is increase the RAM from the baseline of 8GB to 16GB.

Can you update your post with the answers to these questions?

Is there any benefit from going over 16GB? Can I allocate more ram to VMs?

 

[mfenn]

Is there any benefit from going over 16GB? Can I allocate more ram to VMs?

You could go to 32GB allocate more RAM to VMs, but that's not really necessary for learning/lab type machines. With 16GB, you can give each VM 4GB and keep your host OS comfortable at 8GB.

 

[Headfoot]

I'll add a vote to 16 GB and a 256gb MX100, both great suggestions.