Intel or AMD

[aaronearles]

I've got two systems, one is going to be a workstation, one will run Server 2008 with Hyper-V as my virtual server. One has a Phenom II (3.4GHz) with DDR2 and the other an I7 (2.67 cant OC) with DDR3, I know the i7 outperforms the phenom in every other category, and I'm assuming in virtualization too now that intel uses the onboard memory controller. Which would you recommend I use?

 

[Joe Average]

Intel, period.

 

[nessus]

Unless your VMs on your server are going to be really high CPU use, I'd use the i7 for your workstation.

I'm running a slower 3 core AMD for my hyper-v 2008 server with 4 GB of RAM.

I have the following VMs on mine

2008 DC/DNS/DHCP
2003 Exchange/Web/FTP
Windows Home Server
x64 Windows 7
Openfiler VM

With the RAM assignments I have, I'm running 92% memory usage, and typically about 1/3of one core's worth of processor with everything idling.

 

[dr.stevil]

as much as I love AMD... Intel all the way. Their processors, since the core2's at least, have totally changed my opinion of them. I'll still always be an amd fanboy (the original Athlon64 was an animal for it's day), but you cant argue with numbers

 

[/dev/null]

For any box that isn't getting a $150+ cpu, you can only go AMD. IOMMU is (in general) supported better than vt-d and no intel cpu sub $150 has hardware vt (certain vm software requirest this -- may not apply to you)

 

[Joe Average]

I can get an E8400 at Fry's for $139 out the door... VT-x enabled I get the gist of your post, Robstar, but if someone is so interested in VM usage, they're not going to get a low-end CPU anyway. It's not a cost issue... at least I don't think it is.

 

[anss123]

AMD-V is superior to Intel's VT-x. What this simply means is that an AMD machine can juggle more virtual machines simultaneously. However if you're running four or less virtual machines the Core i7 should pull ahead a good bit.

 

[aaronearles]

AMD-V is superior to Intel's VT-x. What this simply means is that an AMD machine can juggle more virtual machines simultaneously. However if you're running four or less virtual machines the Core i7 should pull ahead a good bit.

That's pretty much the kind of info I was looking for.
Thanks for the advice everyone.

 

[Joe Average]

AMD-V is superior to Intel's VT-x. What this simply means is that an AMD machine can juggle more virtual machines simultaneously. However if you're running four or less virtual machines the Core i7 should pull ahead a good bit.

Making such a bold statement obviously would do much better if you have some data to back up such a claim... I've never seen a single report on virtualization performance that said any given AMD product is "superior" to any given Intel product, so by all means... point us to where the facts lie, if you please.

 

[anss123]

Making such a bold statement obviously would do much better if you have some data to back up such a claim... I've never seen a single report on virtualization performance that said any given AMD product is "superior" to any given Intel product, so by all means... point us to where the facts lie, if you please.

There's not a whole lot of relevant benchmarks out there, got my knowledge from statements on other forums, but look at http://www.vmware.com/products/vmmark/results.html - the 8 core systems specifically (as that's the closets to a single CPU to single CPU benchmark). Note that the top system is a 2.7GHz AMD while Intel has a 3.33GHz Xeon further down the list (scoring 9.15@7 tiles versus AMD's 11.28@8 tiles)

Sadly there's no i7 on the list, and they are not benchmarking the number of VM's they can run concurrently either. Though i7 benchmarks around the web outperform the AMD offering in raw performance (single VM vs single VM).

 

[SockMan!]

I don't know if it's important you, but depending on motherboard support the Phenom II can utilize unbuffered ECC RAM. The i7 doesn't support ECC at all.

 

[spectrumbx]

Unless your VMs on your server are going to be really high CPU use, I'd use the i7 for your workstation.
...

+1

If you already have the hardware, then it all depends on how much power your VMs really need.
So, use the i7 as workstation if the VMs will do fine on the AMD system.

I don't know if it's important you, but depending on motherboard support the Phenom II can utilize unbuffered ECC RAM. The i7 doesn't support ECC at all.

+1
You want your VM server machine to be as stable as possible.
For my server, I went with registered 4-bit ECC ram and enabled background scrubbing on everything (Ram, L1, L2).
So far, I have had a 100% uptime.

 

[spectrumbx]

There's not a whole lot of relevant benchmarks out there, got my knowledge from statements on other forums, but look at http://www.vmware.com/products/vmmark/results.html - the 8 core systems specifically (as that's the closets to a single CPU to single CPU benchmark). Note that the top system is a 2.7GHz AMD while Intel has a 3.33GHz Xeon further down the list (scoring 9.15@7 tiles versus AMD's 11.28@8 tiles)

Sadly there's no i7 on the list, and they are not benchmarking the number of VM's they can run concurrently either. Though i7 benchmarks around the web outperform the AMD offering in raw performance (single VM vs single VM).

Do note the difference in system memory.
These are system comparisons and not cpu comparisons.
So, the others system specs other than the cpus are important.

 

[/dev/null]

I can get an E8400 at Fry's for $139 out the door... VT-x enabled I get the gist of your post, Robstar, but if someone is so interested in VM usage, they're not going to get a low-end CPU anyway. It's not a cost issue... at least I don't think it is.

Joe average> Most of my servers @ home are "low end" (amd [45]8[50]0 procs) by your guys standard. The cheap, low power cpu's with hardware VT are a dream to run many light appliance boxes (nameservers, webservers, etc)