What's the best CPU to run VM workstation with

[vChr1s]

Hey all. I am spec'ing out a new laptop for myself and I have a bit of a dilemma. I am debating between what CPU to get in it. I am considering the Intel i7-620M and the i7-720QM. The CPU specs for the 620 are dual core, 2.66 GHz, 4M cache. While the 720QM are quad core, 1.6 GHz, and 6M cache.

The bottom line is do I want the reduced clock speed for more cores? My question to you guys is, can VM Workstation 7 take advantage of the multiple cores. Everything I've read about comparisons is in respect to gamingand that is not going to be what the laptop is used for. It is my work laptop which will be used for day-to-day sys admin stuff and running VM Workstation 7 for the testing of servers and software apps. None of the VMs will be production.

Other laptop specs if necessary are: Win7 64 bit with 8 GB of RAM.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

[Althaz]

Hello,

For the number of Cores I would say that it depends what you will be running in the virtual machines and how many VM's.

The number one question I have concerning this is about CPU optimisation : Does VM Workstation take advantage of any Intel or AMD specific optimisations ?

[Scissor]

What is the price difference between the two CPUs? If it is significant I would get the cheaper CPU and spend the difference on an external eSATA drive and eSATA adapter for your laptop so that you can run your VMs off a different drive then your Host OS.

[Scissor]

No matter which Host CPU you go with, you will most likely end up running your Guests with a single vCPU each because that will give you the best overall performance.

So unless you are going to be running a lot of CPU-bound processes, I don't think you would "miss" the 2 extra cores. I would lean towards the faster dual-core CPU vs the slower quad-core CPU. But it all depends on your own workload.

[vChr1s]

It isn't a whole lot $ difference but it's enough to make me consider my options. I think the difference is about $250.

That's an interesting idea. I have an option to add a second internal disk drive too. Then the question becomes a 7200 RPM SATA or an external eSATA. I would assume the internal SATA must be faster?

Thanks for your comments.

[Scissor]

SATA and eSATA are the same interface so they both are fast.

If you do go with an external drive for running Guests, eSATA will be significantly faster than either USB 2.0 or Firewire.

An external drive enclosure would allow you the option use desktop-size (3.5") hard drives, which are larger, cheaper, and have better performance than laptop ( 2.5") hard drives. The drawback with using the 3.5" external drive enclosures are their physical size and requirement for a seperate power supply. (Some 2.5" external enclosures can draw power off a USB port to power the drive)

My laptop can only hold one hard drive, so I went with an external 2.5" eSATA enclosure and drive. I also had to purchase an eSATA ExpressCard beacause my laptop did not have a eSATA connector built in. This layout worked well for me.

Since your laptop can support a second internal drive, I would suggest going with the a second internal 2.5" SATA drive.

[vChr1s]

Good stuff. I like it. Thanks for the input.

On May 6, 2010, at 3:23 PM, "Scissor" <communities-emailer@vmware.com