Intel and AMD once again are angling for leadership in virtualization, technology that increases a computer’s efficiency by letting it run multiple operating systems simultaneously. Intel is expected to declare this week that its Virtualization Technology is mature enough for testing and about three months away from prime time. But AMD, whose rival “Pacifica” technology won’t debut in processors until midway through this year, is trying to set its own technology as a standard for virtualization of computer communications, an element not present in Intel’s VT.
Lets look at the math here.
We’re in February.
Intel says it will have its tech ready in three months. February + 3 months = May.
AMD says its tech will be ready mid-way through the year. The year has twelve months therefore the middle is about May-June.
So why are they trying to intonate that AMD is so far behind with their tech?
Damien
Well Intels chips hav had a bad ron latly, beeten by AMD in allmost all benchmaks an as for heat an preformance/watt … Intel is simply trying to say “Hey wee will be the ferst x86 arch wtith HW VT … we beat AMD!!!”, as the saying goes time will tell It*s certanly going to be interesting seeing the firs Intel vs Pacifica benchmarks.
Yea, AMD beats the xxx out of Intel… look at this… http://www.zdnetasia.com/powercenter/amd/dual_core/performance.htm
Edited 2006-02-08 03:06
Lets look at the math here.
We’re in February.
Intel says it will have its tech ready in three months. February + 3 months = May.
AMD says its tech will be ready mid-way through the year. The year has twelve months therefore the middle is about May-June.
You mean June-July, right?
Damn that base-12 math, caught me again! X-)
Damien
Journalists want to portray everything as a race or a conflict, even if there’s no big deal. Hardware virtualization assist is now a commodity; both Intel and AMD have it and it will get used where it needs to be used. Users will continue to not notice much of a difference.
If you’re working in the virtualisation field Pacifica seems far more interesting than VT –
Part 1
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23721
Part 2
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23772
Part 3
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23840
For those who would like a summary of the inq links:
Due to the design decisions made by AMD when creating the K8 architecture, they have some tools that Intel does not have. AMD has an integrated memory controller on the CPU, and the CPU has hypertransport connections (“direct connect architecture”). There are of course other differences in the design, but these two are the most obvious in relation to virtualization.
AMD can virtualize memory management completely within the CPU because all memory access is done through the CPU. They came up with two different ways of handling memory virtualization. One is more software-oriented while the other is more hardware-oriented. Intel’s memory virtualization management must be done completely through software at the moment. This can be a big deal with a guest OS that uses a significant amount of memory.
Due to the direct connections that hypertransport makes possible between devices and the CPU, device handling can be both more simple as well as complex depending on the situation. Virtualization adds a layer of complexity to this situation just as it adds complexity in other areas. Therefore, AMD included tools to help handle devices between host and guest operating systems.
Pacifica does seem to have advantages over VT, but those advantages are only possible because of there are design differences between the chips in the first place. If AMD hadn’t added the capabilities that make Pacifica more compelling, virtualization with an AMD chip could possibly have been more cumbersome and been less appealing than with a VT enabled Intel chip.
this is not the same game as the performance wars. totally different scope kiddies.
pacifica definately looks like the stronger first step, but i beleive the first one to integrate ASI’s pci-e virtualization “wins”. course, the SIG is still working on that, so there’s some time.