OT: was: Re: 32 or 64??

[Rashkae]

Gilles Gravier wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 02/02/2010 19:33, Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 11:55 -0500, Rashkae wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> I couldn't help but notice recently, much to my cost, that Intel is 
>>> removing Virtualization extensions on all their current socket 775 
>>> CPU's.. (how are the i5 and i7 faring?).  The only reason I can think 
>>> for this move is to prevent the low end cpus from competing with the 
>>> workstation/server market, since these cpu's are now more than fast 
>>> enough for many workloads to be simply io bound.
>>>     
>> I would not surprise me that Intel would do this sort of thing. They are
>> very clever at maintaining their profit margin.
>>
>>   
> FUD. All Intel processors (well... Celerons don't really qualify, here)
> support VT-X. i7, Xeon, Nehalem, all support (and future instances on
> the roadmap) VT-X.
> 
> Gilles.
> 

Bullcrap.

The Q8300, Q8400 (Core 2 Quad) as well as a number of Core 2 Duo (The 
7000 range, I believe) do not support virtualiaztion, (though their 
predecessor's, the 6000 series, did).

Believe me, I was as surprised as you when I discovered this (after 
banging my head trying to figure out why I couldn't get 64-bit virtual 
machines to work on these shiny new servers I just assembled.).