Why there is no VT-d support in Intel K series processors?

[Olivia]

My question is very genuine and straight forward to you experts. I haven’t found any VT-d support on 2500K processor, also it not in 2600K processor. Why isn’t there VT-d support in the K series processors? My another question is what collision it will have on VM’s? I am very eager to the answer as I was going to purchase 2500K processor for myself. Now I am confused.

[Bansi_WADIA]

I even curiosity, and not drive or trying to start a discussion with someone, but what people are doing with virtualization, which allows the hardware to support? It was available in the former, the newer generations of Intel processors? I'm upgrading from an Athlon XP, so I'm lost in the woods on this. I went with the 2500K, looking at each of the features not everyone is bringing the debate here, and honestly I cannot say any of them is an ultimatum to me.

[Aloke]

It seems strange, so he stayed outside. Intel has always had this idea to disable annoying characteristics of the different chips. AMD hardware virtualization in almost every chip they sell. You can go from a dual core that has VT-d, a quad core no. It has VT-x, which is much more than any normal user would use for virtualization. You do not need VT-d, which is more for data centers.

[Logan.M]

The creation of virtual test at home makes them feel big GTFO. Just because you have no idea and do not use does not mean it is not functional to others. Given its user base is still very small, but may change over protection (VE) virtual environments. Consider the configuration of your access to web VE, which limits any virus from spreading. Or a VE that has only the basic elements of the essence of the operating system and the necessary things for games. These are just a couple of ideas from the top of my head.

[AmdUser]

I am in vmware 7.2, used to run in E7200, which has no virtual machine hardware, x4 AMD now has 620, hardware, truth be told, both work well, but you can say is x4 faster slightly. I think for home use, you probably will not notice the difference, but seems to support VT-x hardware IO VM so I suppose anything that uses IO will have much success w / o it. I really do not know why Intel is divided VM characteristics of this type, I think today we have so much RAM, VM should be a standard feature for everyone. However, the time you have additional RAM, it should run fast enough for home use.

[Nutty]

I wondered the same thing, I have VT-d? I did not even know if I had it in my current setup. While my Q9300 has VT-d, my chipset does not, so I'm not missing anything. It should come as no surprise that the H67 does not support VT-d, but the P67. It also looks like the series of Q in line phones to do so well. I initiate this blog from May 2010 to give some indication of whether or not you "need" VT-d. I'm not going to be anxious about the lack of VT-d in the home and not have the multiplier unlocked. Although come to build some of the machines we use at work, I never OC there, so would the 2500/2600 non-k and get VT-d. Although I do at work, I do not need VT-d either.

[Sn0w-Le0p@rD]

In VT-d/AMD-Vi a virtual guest has direct access to a dedicated device. NIC is a typical device, VT-d should decrease the latency and CPU overhead of the network connection for guests. The host, of course, uses a different physical NIC.I admit there is a "VT-d stage," it might be fun at home, is a dedicated graphics card. To run a game in a virtual graphics invited to everything, but even better would be a bit slower than running on the host operating system. VT-x/AMD-V is the basis function for virtualization. VT-x is in the 2600K. You can run a virtual guest without them, as shown on VirtualBox, but limits the choice of the application.