Should I go i7 for Virtual Machines?

Associate
Joined
13 Dec 2008
Posts
177
Thanks in advance, I'm doing an upgrade for a mate and need some advice.

He has all the bits from his previous build apart a motherboard, CPU and Memory.

Will be mainly used for VMWare workstation and MS Virtaul Server with some gaming and overclocking.

£500 max budget for CPU, Mobo, memory + CPU cooler.

I'm thinking i7, will this be better then say a Q9550 for VMware and VS or should he go PII 955?
 
Last edited:
Using the PC and install VMware WS or Microsoft Virtual Server to become the host, and you then install Windows 2003, 2008, XP...etc as clients.

I think its Virtualisation. TBH I'm not too clued up on it.
 
I understand that the XP virtual software in W7 is restricted when it comes to 3d acceleration.

Re spec:

Intel Core i7 920 D0 Stepping (SLBEJ) 2.66Ghz (Nehalem) (Socket LGA1366) - Retail £225.99

Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD3R Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard
£145.99

Corsair XMS3 6GB (3x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 (1600MHz) Tri-Channel (TR3X6G1600C9) £78.99

Noctua NH-U12P SE1366 CPU Cooler (Socket LGA1366) £57.99

Sub Total : £442.58
Shipping : £9.50
VAT : £67.81
Total : £519.89

go for a cheaper cooler (Tru maybe) or 3GB ram to bring price in at under £500 if absolute must
 
If you must then I daresay windows 7 will cope alright. Dual booting linux, with the virtual machines under linux and windows as the secondary for gaming is how my system is set up. I'm quite fond of virtualbox.

More important than cpu is ram. Each virtual machine would quite like to have 2gb available, so if you're running several 8/12gb suddenly look quite reasonable.

I switched from e8400 to q9550 in order to run more virtual machines at once, and that was a success. Each machine tends to only use one core, so my quad was quite happy with three machines running on it while my dual core started to get upset with two.

I suspect an i7 would be marginally better, but its capacity for lots of ram might prove more important. It it's a new computer, then in this case i7 looks sensible. It'll fit within 500 quid just about. For cooler, Fenrir if noise doesn't matter, TRUE if it does, Noctua if TRUE costs too much. 920 D0 chip, asus p6t se, 12gb of ram is the route I'd take.
 
I ran 3 Virtual Machines on my AMD 7750+ (2.7GHz) and 4 gigs of RAM (XP, Vista and Windows 7), at the same time. Worked fine, but I just needed to compare web browsers ;-)
 
Using it for Computer Based Training on Windows 2003/2008, Exchange...etc.
So want to have a couple of Domain Controllers for replication, DNS and a App server, Also XP clients to test policies.
Work related.
 
When my computer is actually working, this is what I use it for...

Debian as base operating system. Ran gnome, mdadm, folding at home, not much else.
XP in virtualbox, running foobar, vlc, media player. Red alert and similar too.
Ubuntu in virtualbox, as desktop environment. Firefox etc
Two screens, windows on one, linux on the other. Only see Debian when one crashes.

Periodically I ran vista instead of xp, for the same purpose as xp is used for. Been intending to run arch or gentoo as day to day environment for ages now and not found time yet.

I've been intending to set up ipcop in another machine and using that as a software firewall/router but not got around to that yet.

Debian is rock solid. It just doesn't break, ever.
Windows is very good at foobar, and I like it for media player / itunes etc.

Using ubuntu as a day to day environment means that me continually playing with it and messing up the settings doesn't matter so much, as when it dies, replacing it is no effort.

Ipcop is a very good router, designed to be run on old hardware. People have has success running it in a virtual machine, so I'd like to use that to protect the windows installs.

So the combination works well. Once it's set up, it's incredibly reliable (Debian), pretty (Windows), and customisable (Ubuntu). Drawback is that virtualbox doesn't do 3D very well yet, so I have to reboot into windows to use cad or play 3D games.
 
Some things you need to know about virtualisation, from the ground up:
:- There are two types of virtualisation - Hypervisor (Type 0) and Type 1. With type 0 you run the hypervisor "server OS" in the lowest mode of the processor (ring 0), then you run client operating systems within the hypervisor. Very useful for servers, doesn't work for gaming as the clients don't have access to the full power of the graphics cards.
Type 1 is what you're looking at, having something like XP or Windows 7 installed and running VMWare or MS Virtual PC / Server, and then installing operating systems inside them.

For Type 1, on 32-bit Intel (x86) you can use *any* processor, however the Virtual Machines will be slow, as Intel Architecture is crap for virtualisation. For 32-bit clients on x64 Windows, same story.

For 64-bit clients on 64-bit it's a bit different. To do this you need a processor which has Intel VT (or AMD's equivalent) instructions. Not all Intel 64-bit CPUs have this, although both the Q9550 and i7 do. With VT the main hardware bottleneck with a Virtual Machine becomes graphics, and in some cases, disk read-write speeds (as the VMWare has to translate the clients OS r/w calls into the host OS's calls, etc).

Also, VT provides a massive performance boost CPU wise as instructions pretty much become 1-for-1.

Relating to your original question, over the q9550 the i7 will only provide marginal gains, as like I said, the VM will rarely use 100% CPU, and both procs have the VT instructions. However, the Westmere architecture (which I've been told will fit in a Socket 1366 motherboard) is supposed to bring more performance boosts to the VT instructions, so you'll have to wait and see. :)
 
Thanks for the info, The PC will be running vista 64 with MS Virtual server installed (host), then I think he'll be installing Server/client OS as clients/guests, he is using it for training while going through CBT and learnkey, build a Windows 2003 infrastructure.
He has a HP Proliant ML110 running VMware ESX Server with clients on it already. But would like to be able to install as many guests as possible and when he's not running these virtual guests/client he'll play games on this PC upgrade.
I think it'll be i7 with 6GB for now and add another 6GB later.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that, will bear that in mind. Might go for the ASUS P6T WS Pro, I think he has some spare SAS drives, not sure if the onboard SAS controller is any good, will read some reviews.
 
Sorry mate, I wasn't meant to come across badly, I should have done a :)

I found a P6T WS Pro for £227 inc Del, I think its good price, need to read up on the onboard SAS controller tho.

I'll read up on other peeps build logs before I attempt doing one myself, and thanks for showing interest, much appreciated.

This build/upgrade is actually for my mate (mentioned above). I have the BIOSTAR Tpower x58, just waiting for the cheap OCZ 6GB (everyone out of stock) and a Coolermaster HAF922.
 
Back
Top Bottom