Hardware-assisted virtualization

T

time

0
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
How essential is VT-x?

I would have said that every CPU should support it - just in case - but now I'm confronted with the bitter reality of Intel's bastardry.

Specifically, my daughter has a limited budget for a laptop. She can save US$160 by getting a 1.86GHz Pentium rather than a 2.4GHz i3. As highlighted in the other thread, the main difference between the chips is the clock speed - and that's not an issue for what she needs.

The Pentium P6000 doesn't support VT-x. Perversely, she could get an identical chip with 1MB less of cache (Celeron P4500) that does support VT-x.

The obvious problem is that Windows 7 XP mode relies on VT-x. She may never need it, although the plan is to run Win 7 Pro 64-bit.

What do you think? Has anyone even used that compatibility mode?
 
Found this page too:
http://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-9150

I remember vmware asking me to turn this feature on for my D630, as I had the feature I just turned it on rather than looking for a workaround. Dell defaulted that one to off for some reason.

Would your daughter even use a VM?
 
I guess you didn't read the other thread ...

The new Pentium is an i3 with hyperthreading disabled, and obviously, a lower clock rate (-22%).

US$160 represents about 25% of the cost of the laptop. She doesn't run benchmarks all day, so I can't see it being worth even half that.

For US$160, you could upgrade to a 60GB Sandforce SSD. A year from now, that will probably be 120GB or more. I know where I would rather spend the money.

The real point though, is that by doing this she can get a Lenovo - with all its real advantages - instead of a Toshiba, HP or MSI.
 
Pulled the trigger on a Lenovo L512 for US$570. The cheapest non-netbook laptop available locally is US$410 (Compaq crap).

That includes the 2MP low-light camera, a "High Capacity" 6-cell battery option (probably standard in the US) and Windows 7 Pro 64-bit.

There's a list of compromises, none of which my daughter needs right now when she's trying to save money:

  • Slower CPU - although as I said I don't really give that much credence. It's still at least 65% faster than a 1.3GHz ULV Core 2.
  • 2GB RAM - she can buy a second 2GB module later.
  • 160GB HDD - actually, this isn't a compromise at all. May replace with SSD next year.
  • Intel HD graphics rather than ATI 5145.
  • No bluetooth or fingerprint reader.

Benefits include:
  • Designed to pass military spec tests for ruggedness
  • Spill-resistant keyboard
  • Durable zinc alloy hinges
  • Advanced hard-drive protection (accelerometer etc)
  • 2.57kg with 15.6" screen and 6-cell battery
  • Thinkpad keyboard etc.
 
Is the L series of Thinkpads new? I don't think I've seen it before.

The price seems very good, is that in AUD?
 
Yes, it's a new range. Despite what Lenovo says, it's clearly replacing the SL series.

The price is in US$ without taxes and includes delivery; I was feeling pretty pleased with myself because traditionally we pay through the nose for that sort of thing.
 
Nope, I missed the whole pentium using the i3 core now instead of the core 2 whatever. It really is confusing so I only focus on the parts that matter to me.
 
I empathize with that a great deal. I shot my mouth off here saying i3 wasn't any better than Core 2. :oops:

But that's why we make technical posts, to share our knowledge.
 
Interesting thing to note: there are at least two different vendors making keyboards for Thinkpads now. I don't know the difference and Lenovo doesn't distinguish, but there's a good one and a bad one. The only reason I know is that I have two T60-series notebooks and their keyboards are different. The "bad" one has a little bit softer return and seems to have worn more quickly (i.e. I can see where I rest my fingers on the home row) despite being the one I type on less. I see enough Thinkpads that I recognize the feel of one versus the other and I think it's about half and half for one keyboard vs. the other.

I'm a little disappointed, but it's a very minor quibble.
 
I've run a couple of quick benchmarks on the 1.86Ghz Pentium P6000. CPUmark 99 (it's cache sensitive and still seems to be a reasonable indicator of single-threaded office application performance after all these years) says it's matching the AMD XP5200 (2.6GHz) and Passmark says it's equivalent to P9400 (2.4GHz) or P7550 (2.26GHz) Core 2 Duo.

Extrapolating from three different i3 CPUs models, Passmark indicates the P6000 is between 10% slower and 5% faster than a similarly clocked i3. It's confirmation that the "Pentium" is in practise almost indistinguishable from the "i3" branded variant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top