Ryzen desktop virtualization performance

[AMD_Gamer]

I am looking to build my new rig for not only gaming but for a lot of regular desktop work. I run a lot of VMs with VirtualBox and trying to figure out how Ryzen would do compared to Intel when it comes to running a bunch of VMs on your desktop? Is there even a good way to benchmark VirtualBox and VMware workstation against different systems?

 

[AltTabbins]

There's not a great way to benchmark that I know of. I would think that 8c16t Ryzen would be on par with the Intel's 8c16t offerings. If I were to build a homelab esxi host, I would look at a 1700 or 1800 for sure.

 

[Shintai]

Ryzen like Naples is slower than Intel for VM. But it all depend how much you want and what you pay for it.

And drop virtualbox and use something better

 

[KazeoHin]

Ryzen like Naples is slower than Intel for VM. But it all depend how much you want and what you pay for it.

And drop virtualbox and use something better

I dont think so, The evidence suggest that Ryzen will be cheaper in both initial outlay and cost to run, consuming half the power at idle, and taking the same time to do the same tasks as Intel's solutions.

 

[Shintai]

I dont think so, The evidence suggest that Ryzen will be cheaper in both initial outlay and cost to run, consuming half the power at idle, and taking the same time to do the same tasks as Intel's solutions.

The idle power is about mobo features and manufactor not the CPU since they all idle at pretty much nothing

 

[KazeoHin]

This graph is only measuring the CPU input voltage from the 8-pin CPU header, which is inaccurate, as shown by some Overclocked loads being nearly the same as Stock loads on the same board. In short, the CPU consumes less power from the supplied 12v 8-pin in idle, but that does not mean it consumes as little as 1 and 2 watts as shown.

Ryzen consumes the same or less than Intel per core. This is a great thing for virtualization.

 

[st4rk]

Not sure about any one else, but I've never been CPU bound on my Hyper-V servers in my home "lab". They are always disk bottlenecked - I'm not gonna drop $ on 1tb HDD or even small SSD. My vms rarely ever use more than 60gb each. I also usually run desktop hosts with only 32gb memory, so I can only fit like 4-6 vms on each host. Now that I think about it, I run a pretty ghetto hyper-v setup

Even my q6600 and 1055t were worthy of hyper-v and ran a few vms fine Though I switched to 8320e recently for remotefx.

 

[Simplyfun]

Not sure about any one else, but I've never been CPU bound on my Hyper-V servers in my home "lab". They are always disk bottlenecked .

This, I do a lot of VM work, the best performance gain is from the 1TB Enterprise SSD's, the rest barely matters as long there's enough quantity (CPU RAM).