Like I said, I don't dispute the fact that it's an important feature to certain people. I'm merely stating that people have been confusing VT-d for VT-x, and mistakenly claiming that hardware assisted virtualisation doesn't work. Clearly, this isn't the case!
Now, the lack of VT-d isn't going to cause a problem to the majority of the target market i.e. the enthusiast who is big into gaming (yet somewhat ironically, it does cause me issues, but that's my reward for being an early adopter). I can totally understand why you would be unwilling to pay £500+ for a CPU that does not support this feature, especially given that you (inSilica) have mentioned one of the few potential uses where VT-d is essential.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not trying to be contrary or otherwise cause annoyance; I'm just keen on making sure that people understand that it isn't a crippling issue, that makes the CPU worthless and unusable, and causes misery and shame to all concerned.
Edit: I should have been more precise when I said "hardware that supports the functionality". What I meant was, it's up to the motherboard manufacturer to enable VT-d functionality in the chipset - if they don't, it doesn't matter which stepping of the processor you have, you'll be without VT-d. HP have a history of removing access to features like this from their BIOS/EUFI, for example having a system with a Core 2 Duo that supports VT-x, on a chipset that can support VT-x, and preventing the end user from enabling the feature.
?
)