Will a quad core run both 32 and 64 bit S/W 1

[xwb]

I've been asked to spec a machine. Basically, I just need something cheap and cheerful that will run 32-bit and 64-bit (as Virtual Machines) OSs. Something with 4Gb RAM and about a 500Gb disk will probably see me through to retirement.

It will be used for non-graphical S/W development and testing. Not too bothered about the graphics card as long as it can handle direct-X and open GL and at least 2 screens. It may occassionally be used for graphics testing - I want something that will handle it but very badly so that I keep my machine and the ones who want to use it can get their own.

Sound is not important.

I was wondering whether to get a dual or quad core and which ones will handle 64 bit S/W.

Any suggestions?

 

[wahnula]

All the new CPUs have 64-bit support, it's up to the chipset & BIOS in the mainboard that will determine if you can use it. Make sure that the chip supports virtualization, an important feature going forward with Windows 7 and its XP Mode. This is a chip-level feature, and again, all new CPUs should support it, but make sure to double-check, especially with bargain-bin parts.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[wahnula]

As for 2-core vs. 4-core...the more the merrier. For the budget sector, it's hard to beat the Phenom or Phenom II for price/power:

http://www.directron.com/hd995zxaghbox.html

Note in the specs it says "AMD Virtualization (AMD-V)"...if you don't expressly see virtualization support in the specs then move on. The best way to build a system is to pick the CPU first and then pick everything else around it.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[xwb]

$149 - wow that is really cheap.

I'm just going to run XP and Linux on it: not going to bother with Vista or Windows 7. Don't need a lot of extra grief , like the system locking up while it computes your experience index and decides it is 2 after 5 minutes because I just use the command line and ignore the clicky stuff.

 

[kmcferrin]

Be careful of Intel's CPUs. They use key features (like hardware virtualization assistance, 64-bit support, etc) as differentiating features between their various CPU lines. Any quad core should fit the bill, but their dual core CPUs can be hit or miss depending on what feature you want. Even some of Intel's latest dual core CPUs are missing features that were implemented in previous dual core CPUs because they're targetted at different markets.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Windows 7
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[Nelviticus]

Ideally, if you want to run 64-bit virtual machines, you'll want a 64-bit host operating system. You can run 64-bit guests on a 32-bit host OS if you have a 64-bit processor with hardware virtualization support but they won't run as quickly as they would on a 64-bit host OS.

The 64-bit version of Windows XP gets a bad press mainly due to poor hardware driver support. I'd recommend going for 64-bit Windows 7 - either wait until it comes out or use the RC for now and reinstall when the retail version is available.

Nelviticus

 

[Sympology]

Just remember XP is now obsolete, so don't expect suppport for the likes of USB3, due out soon.

Most people spend their time on the "urgent" rather than on the "important."

 

[Grenage]

Vista and 7 AMD64 are miles ahead of XP in terms of support, so I'd give windows 7 some serious consideration.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[xwb]

I know XP is going out but that is about all I need. Don't need any fancy stuff that I can run the rest of the stuff as 32 and 64 bit VMs. It is just a platform for hosting 32 and 64 bit VMs.

 

[Grenage]

Might be worth taking a look at Vmware's host OS. They have a free base OS specifically for running VMs.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[kmcferrin]

Actually they don't. VMWare has a free, single-node, bare-metal hypervisor (called ESXi) for running VMs, but it is definitely not an operating system. For that matter, Microsoft has a free, stand-alone version of Hyper-V and Citrix has a free stand-alone version of Xen as well.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Windows 7
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[Grenage]

Well it's a system, it operates, and it hosts VMs. I'd call that an operating system, even if it is simple by contrast.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[kmcferrin]

By that same logic, my automobile is an OS. It is also a system that operates.

From Dictionary.com:

operating system

–noun Computers.
the collection of software that directs a computer's operations, controlling and scheduling the execution of other programs, and managing storage, input/output, and communication resources. Abbreviation: OS
Origin:
1960–65

Since you do not run applications/programs directly on ESX, it is not an operating system. It is a hypervisor, meaning that it manages access to hardware resources between operating systems beneath the level of the operating system.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Windows 7
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[Grenage]

Main Entry:
operating system
Function:
noun
Date:
1961

: software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs (as by assigning storage space in memory and controlling input and output functions)

It manages and runs the virtual machines above it, handling their requests. It's an OS, and I fail to see how your automobile is a working analogy.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[cdogg]

Fellas...

Up until ESXi, earlier versions of VMWare such as ESX relied on Linux to handle many kernel operations. In particular, ESX heavily relied on the "service console" from Linux to execute scripts and install third party agents for hardware management. Essentially that's what we have come to know about hypervisors in general. At their core lies one or more components of a 3rd-party operating system. In this respect, kmcferrin is right on the money. You cannot give a basic hypervisor the title of operating system.

ESXi, however, may change the discussion in favor of Grenage. The "service console" was stripped from ESX to give ESXi a smaller footprint. It no longer relies on a 3rd-party OS and actually contains its own complete kernel (hence the description, "bare-metal"). ESXi technically manages its own I/O in a similar fashion to firmware (such as the BIOS) and in some ways compares to the old RISC OS. So although it is technically referred to as a "hypervisor", this is clearly a play on words and classifications.


Resources:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-hypervisor/index.html?ca=drs-

http://www.vmware.com/products/esxi/uses.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/operating system

(look under the section "Computer Dictionary")

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[Grenage]

Hi, cdogg.

Thank you for such an informative explanation, and some good links.

Russell.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[kjv1611]

So, can we compare it to sunglasses perhaps?
;p

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me