2600 vs 2600k

[Joseph F]

it actually almost makes sense

the VT-d and TXT are hardcore enterprise features

enterprise customers aren't going to
1) overclock
2) run 3d games

thus they don't need either feature

the k model is for enthusiasts, they get the overclock and better graphics but not the 'useless' enterprise features

I agree, the 2600 is a business chip whereas the 2600k is an enthusiast chip. That makes sense to me but I still wish that VT-d and TXT were supported on the 2600k.

 

[mv2devnull]

I agree, the 2600 is a business chip whereas the 2600k is an enthusiast chip. That makes sense to me but I still wish that VT-d and TXT were supported on the 2600k.

Lets suppose that Intel miraculously grants a wish and activates VT-d on K-series. I can now foresee your next wish.

Practically no current 1155 motherboard, save some Intel models, genuinely supports VT-d.

Therefore, in practice 2600K has everything that 2600 has, and more.

 

[drizek]

"It's OK for intel to sell gimped chips because their gimped chipsets are going to gimp them anyway".

I just don't like the idea that I am missing features in an $800 system so that intel can save $2 in chipset manufacturing costs(and spend extra money gimping their CPUs).

I could be wrong, but, generally speaking, AMD chipsets in a generation will differ only in their support for actual motherboard features, but not for CPU features.

 

[tijag]

2600 - useless vpro management you won't use, locked fsb, harder to sell, preferred by dell and hp which suck
2600k - overclocking support, unlocked fsb, easier to sell, preferred by system builders

Its not the FSB which is locked/unlocked, its the multiplyer. The FSB on SNB chips basically remains static. No OCing of the FSB.

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

At this time the only boards for the 2nd generation Intel® Core™ processor that have VT-d enabled on them are the Q67 chipset based boards. There are other chipsets that support the technology but have not been enabled including the X58 chipset. The only companies that I know that are building Q67 chipset based boards are Intel and Gigabyte and have VT-d enabled. There just isn’t much demand for VT-d it within the enthusiast space.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[drizek]

Maybe not now, but there will be once there is a consumer product that uses it. Windows XP Mode in windows 7 requires vtx and there are a lot of people with artificially gimped CPUs and lazily gimped motherboards that can't run it.

And don't even try and tell me that regular consumers have no use for AES-NI, which was crippled in half of the *Dale chips( and I'm not sure if it is even widely available in sb either).

 

[tynopik]

Maybe not now, but there will be once there is a consumer product that uses it. Windows XP Mode in windows 7 requires vtx

Not even remotely comparable. VT-d will never be popular in consumer space because it requires extra hardware. How many people are going to install a second (VT-d certified) network card just so their VM can have exclusive access to it?

 

[VirtualLarry]

And don't even try and tell me that regular consumers have no use for AES-NI, which was crippled in half of the *Dale chips( and I'm not sure if it is even widely available in sb either).

The way that Intel intentionally gimps their CPUs and chipsets is absurd. If that isn't evidence of lack of competition in the market, I don't know what is.

 

[Habeed]

Maybe not now, but there will be once there is a consumer product that uses it. Windows XP Mode in windows 7 requires vtx and there are a lot of people with artificially gimped CPUs and lazily gimped motherboards that can't run it.

And don't even try and tell me that regular consumers have no use for AES-NI, which was crippled in half of the *Dale chips( and I'm not sure if it is even widely available in sb either).

1. Almost no home users ever need this. There's usually a way to make old applications work in Windows 7 w/o XP Mode. Or use a different application. I have used virtual machines before back when I had xp 64 bit and I needed a crucial app to run.

The users that do need this feature are not going to be overclocking, and they are going to be buying premium hardware. Very likely they will be deploying servers that use virtualization, not desktop PCs. Thus they do not need this feature in the K. Probably it was scrubbed because of some bug or incompatibility Intel discovered at the last minute.

2. There's always an alternative. Obviously you can do AES in software, and again most home users aren't going to be doing encryption constantly. A secure web page or two with some text on them is not a big computational load. VMware lets you set up virtual machines and it doesn't need any hardware virtualization features to work.

 

[drizek]

Aes, laptops, battery life, ssds

Think about it, there's a huge use case for it on laptops.

 

[tynopik]

Aes, laptops, battery life, ssds

Think about it, there's a huge use case for it on laptops.

Both the 2600 and 2600k come with AES-ni

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52214,52213,

 

[tynopik]

1. Almost no home users ever need this. There's usually a way to make old applications work in Windows 7 w/o XP Mode. Or use a different application. I have used virtual machines before back when I had xp 64 bit and I needed a crucial app to run.

while this may or may not be true, it is not really relevant to 2600 vs 2600k as BOTH come with VT-x so BOTH support XP mode in Win 7

VT-d IS NOT VT-x

VMWare Workstation can use VT-x but I think you need VMWare ESX plus certified hardware/drivers to use VT-d, completely different beasts

 

[drizek]

Both the 2600 and 2600k come with AES-ni

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52214,52213,

Thats nice for the people who buy high end desktops... doesn't do any good for the hundreds of thousands of people who bought Core i3 and (some) Core i5 laptops.

As for VT-d, it seems like it could be kind of interesting. Is there a technical reason why high end boards(which come with multiple Gigabit ports) can't be VT-d compliant allow you to use the 2nd port in a virtual machine?

I would like to be able to use a virtual machine as a server on my desktop

 

[flexcore]

I think it is BS that we pay good money for top of the line chips and still have features disabled.

 

[mv2devnull]

I would like to be able to use a virtual machine as a server on my desktop

You can do that without VT-d. It's just a matter of overhead/latency.

For example, with KVM (different hypervisor than VMware), one has three options:
* Emulated NIC
* Virtio driver
* VT-d

 

[Habeed]

Ironically, all this whining about the VT-x and VT-d features obscures the fact that these features merely accelerate virtual machines a little bit. (like 10% on one set of benchmarks I saw). Given you can comfortably overclock a 2600K a good 40% without any issues with heat, voltage, or stability and get 40% more performance on EVERYTHING...I think Intel is offering a good deal here.

 

[drizek]

But... why? Why do they have to disable it?

And VT-x does more than just accelerate a little bit. Isn't it required for running a 64bit machine?

 

[Habeed]

But... why? Why do they have to disable it?

And VT-x does more than just accelerate a little bit. Isn't it required for running a 64bit machine?

VT-d is only for a machine that is running MULTIPLE virtual machines. You can still have 64-bit guest OSes without it. Desktop users are almost certainly only going to have 0 or 1 VMs at worst.

 

[mv2devnull]

I don't know ... a dedicated graphics for just one VM sounds fascinating as an idea.

 

[drizek]

One word: Quicksync

 

[Seero]

Isn't the selection far simpler than it sounds? It isn't just the CPU, but the entire setup. With 2600, you get CPU, gpu and hs. With 2600k, gpu and the hs is more or less backups. It really isn't 15 dollars different. Think about it.

 

[aka_Warlock]

Maybe VT-d isn't all that for every user, but it's still lame to disable features imo.

It's like ECC.
You wan't ECC memory?? With Intel you'll need a Xeon cpu and a expensive motherboard.
With AMD you just need the ECC memory and pop it in as it is supported on all chips and motherboards, even the cheap ones.

 

[Borealis7]

if you don't O/C, 2500 or 2500K if resale value is important. that's all.

anyone can tell if Socket 1155 is here to stay? or IVB will be on all new sockets again?

 

[drizek]

IB will probably be compatible. Obviously, it may or may not work out on your specific motherboard, but it is supposed to.