Which AMD CPUs Support XP Mode Virtualization?

Status
Not open for further replies.

deltatux

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
335
0
18,780
0
lol, I thought this was a lil' obvious. It seems that AMD believes that it's beneficial that everyone gets virtualization technology. Seems like AMD is more aggressive in virtualization technology than Intel is.
 

kschoche

Distinguished
Jul 31, 2007
67
0
18,630
0
@ deltatux
Yes and no, or maybe AMD is just trying to capitalize less on the 'VT' flag like Intel does, you have to pay for an extreme edition cpu to get that VT flag turned on.
 

mrubermonkey

Distinguished
Nov 26, 2008
102
0
18,680
0
I am kind of new to this virtualization business proposed by Windows 7, but can you not do the virtualization in software on cpus that do not support hardware vitualization? Granted, it will not be as efficient as hardware virtualization, but for the sake of having it just work can it not be done within Windows 7?
 

mrubermonkey

Distinguished
Nov 26, 2008
102
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]If you've got an AM2 CPU, other than a Sempron, you're good. Guess only pretty early AMDs get left out. Don't know why Intel made theirs so confusing.[/citation]
I think Intel wanted hardware virtualization to be a value added feature whereas AMD realized that it was a possibly necessary feature that should not be denied to those with lesser budgets for cpus. Just a guess.
 

zaratustra06

Distinguished
Jul 2, 2008
22
0
18,510
0
This seems to me like a clean win for AMD. Too many Intel processors lack virtualization. I think that E7200 and E7300 are definitly among those that lack this feature for no reason.
 

astrotrain1000

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2007
136
0
18,680
0
Weird, i started typing then realized i needed to log in. When I did it submitted my comment(which wasn't finished.) Anyways, I agree with megamanx. I remember seeing feature lists for some Intel CPU's and thought hmmm no virtuallization, oh well I'll never need that feature. Problem is now I can see myself using it, as it integrates XP applications and you run them just like you would any windows 7 app.
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
1,743
0
19,860
26
[citation][nom]mrubermonkey[/nom]I am kind of new to this virtualization business proposed by Windows 7, but can you not do the virtualization in software on cpus that do not support hardware vitualization? Granted, it will not be as efficient as hardware virtualization, but for the sake of having it just work can it not be done within Windows 7?[/citation]
You can use software virtualization, but you would have to manually install a host (like VMWare or VirtualPC), and then obtain a legal copy of Windows XP. You would also then be limited by the virtualization software you were using. Why Windows7 doesn't do software-only is a question for Microsoft.
 

mforce2

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2006
96
0
18,630
0
Intel likes to cripple their CPUs , they were always good at it and now that they have the technological superiority again they seem to be at it again.
Of course there's no real reason to not have virtualization in lower end CPUs but why not try get more money from people and sell you expensive models they wouldn't otherwise buy.
It's a shame though , a friend has some real problems at work because he had a PC with a lower end Intel CPU and he could really use the hardware virtualization support. Tough luck.
 
[citation][nom]zaratustra06[/nom]This seems to me like a clean win for AMD. Too many Intel processors lack virtualization. I think that E7200 and E7300 are definitly among those that lack this feature for no reason.[/citation]

It forces people to upgrade/purchace higher end cpus - normal marketing

Why would a $8k car have all of the flash mercedes features?
 

curnel_D

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2007
741
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]It forces people to upgrade/purchace higher end cpus - normal marketingWhy would a $8k car have all of the flash mercedes features?[/citation]
Hardly a comparison. More like BMW has all the flash mercedes-like features for much less.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]socrates047[/nom]History repeats itself (sorta) ... I think AMD is like the Robin Hood character, looking out for the little people[/citation]
Don't be silly, they're only looking out for the little people's wallets. They're a business, just like Intel. They just aren't separating the high end and the low end like Intel is.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Software virtualization sucks, I've tried running VMs on my Pentium M laptop, and also on my Phenom desktop with hardware virtualization enabled, there's no comparison, I can only tell that the Phenom VMs are slower if I'm benchmarking, otherwise they appear to run just as fast as native... Both machines have adequate RAM, so that's not a factor...
 
G

Guest

Guest
AMD has always been looking out for the little guy. I guess that's makes them a great choice.
 

annymmo

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2009
347
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]joeman42[/nom]It is one thing to say in the abstract that "business" needs XPM for legacy apps, though in all fairness this may be true for many. But as an individual (who does not have a VT capable system) I don't have any use for this and I suspect that is the case for most (hmmm, might be a good QOTD). Either way, this is a crutch and I hope it is not exploited as a means for companies to avoid developing their product's capabilities or their staff's skills.[/citation]

When Wine has decent Direct X 9 support,
you can just use Linux with wine on any computer (on which Linux runs) with almost native performance. It makes Linux actually have a windows API where applications can run in with almost native performance, direct X 9 support is not yet available.
It's a way better solution then virtualization if the only thing you need to get some windows XP applications running. Best thing of all, it's free!

For business that depend on legacy applications, virtualization is needed and processors with virtualization support are a big deal.

Once tried hardware accelerated virtualization on a Intel Core 2 Duo
6300 @ 1.86 GHz. It ran way to slow, beyond usable.
Virtualization is more than just have or have not.
It is also about the functions that are hardware accelerated that make virtualization capable hardware good or not usable.
(e.g.: memory management, nested virtualization support, ...)

It would be interesting to see a benchmark, with all the processors.
With hardware accelerated virtualization on and off.
Compared with native Windows XP and to finish Linux + Wine.

What is Linux? It's an OS like windows or Mac OS X,
subdivided into compatible distributions.

What is wine? Is a slightly more complicated question to answer:
http://stason.org/TULARC/os/windows-emulation-wine/1-1-What-is-Wine-and-what-is-it-supposed-to-do.html

Wine is a program which allows the operation of DOS and MS Windows
programs (Windows 3.x and Win32 executables) on UNIX. It consists of
a program loader, which loads and executes a Windows binary, and a
library that implements Windows API calls using their UNIX or X11
equivalents. The library may also be used for porting Win32 code into
native UNIX executables.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]annymmo[/nom]Best thing of all, it's free![/citation]
So is VMware Server/Player, and most other virtualisation software. It also works far more often than Wine which can fix and then break program compatibility with every new release. Wine is not the answer, native Linux software is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS