Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Which Intel CPUs Support XP Mode Virtualization?

Last response: in News comments
Share
May 5, 2009 9:01:00 PM

P8400/8600/8700/9500/9600 YES
Q9450/9550/9550S/9650 YES
all i needed
Score
0
May 5, 2009 9:04:36 PM

At least some P7350 chips do actually support Intel VT. All the ones in the Early 2009 generation of 2.0 GHz Mac Minis certainly appear to. Source.
Score
0
Related resources
May 5, 2009 9:06:33 PM

Are some motherboards not compatible with VT?
Score
-1
May 5, 2009 9:06:46 PM

Q8xxx no? :(  I am throwing a pity party now. ;) 
Score
0
May 5, 2009 9:07:33 PM

Nice, good thing my QX9770 supports it! :D 
Score
0
May 5, 2009 9:09:54 PM

oddly enough it actually wasn't too hard finding this information as I already looked it up after hearing you needed this tech for xp mode. see link above.
Score
0
May 5, 2009 9:11:21 PM

what about amd? who gonna have the bigger pitty party
Score
-1
May 5, 2009 9:28:42 PM

AMD has virtualization built into all 65nm and 45nm processors. That's why it's not really needed to post an AMD list as all recent AMD processors support AMD-V.
Score
18
May 5, 2009 9:28:59 PM

No E7xxx D:
Score
1
May 5, 2009 10:21:53 PM

What other BIOS options would we need to look for, IE I have an XFX 780i SLI board, and a compatible VT enabled E8400.
Score
1
May 5, 2009 10:23:43 PM

both my desktop and notebook can run xps mode w00t
Score
1
May 5, 2009 11:02:27 PM

e8400 ftw!
Score
0
May 5, 2009 11:03:15 PM

Dax CorrinWhat other BIOS options would we need to look for, IE I have an XFX 780i SLI board, and a compatible VT enabled E8400.


I believe there's a bios option called "Disable C1E" or "Disable Vanderpool Technology". Alternatively, just fire up CPU-Z and check to see whether VT is already enabled.
Score
1
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 5, 2009 11:37:14 PM

Since the whole idea is to ensure more compatibility, MS should be able to make virtual XP mode work without the VT support at CPU level if CPU fast enough and lots of RAM. I successfully ran Virtual PC on same PC that runs Windows 7 only to find out that the CPU does not qualify since no VT (Desktop CoreDuo 945, laptop has 5800) Both PCs have 4 GB ram.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 1:46:59 AM

So, in other words, if "XP mode" was primarily aimed at helping enterprises easily migrate to Win7 from XP, then the whole "XP mode" was a massive, combined epic fail from Microsoft and Intel? SRSLY, that just fuxxed up any chance of a quick and easy Win7 UAT certification from any large enterprise...
Score
-1
May 6, 2009 2:18:29 AM

Hmm, I'd like to see what processors it works with AMD.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 2:29:37 AM

deltatuxAMD has virtualization built into all 65nm and 45nm processors. That's why it's not really needed to post an AMD list as all recent AMD processors support AMD-V.

Another senseless act on Intel's part to even diasable a feature such as this. Seems like it would be easier to make things a little more uniform. Oh well, I have an E8400 so i'm covered anyway.

Yes to the above poster about Virtualization Technology and it being a BIOS option. If I recall though, it should be enabled by default.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 3:03:14 AM

What about Xeons and Opterons?
Score
-1
May 6, 2009 3:11:46 AM

What's all the fuss, we're talking productivity apps right - not games so speed isn't a killer?

To those of you without a VT enbled CPU, why not just use Virtualbox, it doesn't need a VT enabled CPU.

I'm using it quite successfully on an E2180 CPU & even a 2.4GHz P4...

Admitedly you have to install it & the XP OS, but the end result works fine... I mean surely we're talking about old apps that aren't supported any more...

Score
-3
May 6, 2009 3:19:26 AM

My processor isn't on there. Dang.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 4:06:39 AM

amazing both laptops and my wifes desktop all with core 2s don't support vt... only my i7 does. So xp mode doesn't work at all without vt? Thats ridiculous all that time and money they put into this isn't going to work on 90 percent of business computers anyways.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 6:38:55 AM

If only lenovo didn't hardcode the bios to turn VT off on my T5600.
Score
1
May 6, 2009 8:35:20 AM

spanky deluxeI believe there's a bios option called "Disable C1E" or "Disable Vanderpool Technology". Alternatively, just fire up CPU-Z and check to see whether VT is already enabled.

C1E is enhanced halt state no? has nothing to do with vt, merely with power management. I don't know what nvidia calls the VT feature, but on my gigabyte p35 system it's simply called Virtualization Technology with an Enable/Disable toggle.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 12:03:25 PM

E6600 avoids the grave once again. 'Twill never be obsolete.
Score
2
May 6, 2009 12:04:53 PM

randomizerE6600 avoids the grave once again. 'Twill never be obsolete.

oh it is obsolete already! it's just way too slow for a modern enviroment. Even at 3.4ghz a conroe just isn't really quick anymore - you at least need two of them!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 12:12:13 PM

Nevar! My E6600 kicks butt in everything I throw at it, even at 3.1GHz! :D 
Score
0
May 6, 2009 12:15:22 PM

randomizerNevar! My E6600 kicks butt in everything I throw at it, even at 3.1GHz!

Enable LLA - load forged alliance with 4-5 AI's on a 40km map with 1000 as unit cap - and tell me after 1½ hours of gameplay, that it's still kicking ass.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 12:22:24 PM

Go and load up 12 F@H SMP clients on a Q9550 and tell me it's still kicking ass. No need to make them do things they can't for no reason. If I was to upgrade I would be out of pocket a good $400-450 for no tangible benefit.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 12:26:22 PM

well forged alliance isn't equal to loading 12 instances of a calculator. It's a simple game, and it's not even the most demanding one out there. And the e6600 is supposed to handle games - thus it's obsolete.
On a side note - I'm running an e6600 myself.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 12:27:01 PM

What does it say about Windows XP that the new version of Windows, technically two versions away from XP, allows us to run a virtualized XP? It seems like XP might be M$'s golden boy.

I have a Q8300, so I guess I'm out of luck.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 12:38:44 PM

Dave_69What does it say about Windows XP that the new version of Windows, technically two versions away from XP, allows us to run a virtualized XP? It seems like XP might be M$'s golden boy.I have a Q8300, so I guess I'm out of luck.

As of last month XP moved from mainstream to extended support. This in turn will be terminated in april 2014.
Essentially this means, that while you can keep running XP based software in your virtual enviroment, you will not receive any feature updates anymore. All you get is security fixes. The virtual enviroment isn't something microsoft did to milk the old xp cow, but to encourage people to switch to a more secure and in theory more reliable platform before they get left behind.
In essence they are just providing a piece of software similar to vmware's (free) player, so that people can move to windows 7 without too much fear of losing their old 16bit compatibility they've grown used to.

Besides this, I wonder how they're planning on offering licenses for xp ? Is that included in your virtual pc package, or does it require the person merging to have a retail or volume license for xp (moving an oem license to new hardware isn't legal, and often not possible due to bios mismatch). After all you can't buy a new xp license as of last year.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 12:40:28 PM

neiroatopelccwell forged alliance isn't equal to loading 12 instances of a calculator. It's a simple game, and it's not even the most demanding one out there. And the e6600 is supposed to handle games - thus it's obsolete.On a side note - I'm running an e6600 myself.

Obsoletion is relative. If i did video encoding, it would be obsolete. If I play Left 4 Dead, it's not obsolete. If I use Firefox it's not obsolete. If I try to run 12 instances of F@H I probably BSOD.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 12:42:13 PM

Dave_69I have a Q8300, so I guess I'm out of luck.

By the way - you can still run a 32bit virtual os in vmware without VT - you just can't run a 64bit one. I'm not sure wether this is possible in a 64bit host enviroment like it is with vista, but i'd assume so.
So you aren't THAT much out of luck. install a vmware workstation and before trial ends, make sure you've installed what you need. Then ditch the workstation and install a player you can now use for your virtual xp from now till eternity. If you set up your virtual network to only communicate with your host, you don't even need to worry about the security fixes not arriving after 2014. And since you're still running a 8+ year old os, you might still be running windows 7 in 4.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 12:45:39 PM

randomizerObsoletion is relative. If i did video encoding, it would be obsolete. If I play Left 4 Dead, it's not obsolete. If I use Firefox it's not obsolete. If I try to run 12 instances of F@H I probably BSOD.

Since windows reserves some amount of resources for itself, I bet you can't get a bsod from 12 instances .... you get an unresponsive gui, which a taskmanager might be able to stop, or it'll simply lag you to death. But it won't grant you a blue debug screen unless it prevents drivers from working. And it won't.

Anyway, it is obsolete. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it's out of production, and it's comparatively slow and inefficient.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 12:51:08 PM

I was joking about the BSOD. If 2 VMs sucking 96% of my RAM doesn't cause a BSOD, nothing will :lol: 

Well, even if it is obsolete, there is zero reason to upgrade it. The ROI wouldn't be even close to justifiable.
Score
1
May 6, 2009 12:56:45 PM

I don't play supreme commander enough to justify an upgrade either - but if I got offered a q9xxx cheap I might upgrade anyway.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 1:04:48 PM

A Q9xxx wouldn't work on my board, which is why I'd need to shell out even more cash for such a small benefit. A Q6600 will work but isn't going to OC far. Some have managed to get E8xxx chips working but it's hit-and-miss. Good old AB9 Pro.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 1:22:18 PM

randomizerA Q9xxx wouldn't work on my board, which is why I'd need to shell out even more cash for such a small benefit. A Q6600 will work but isn't going to OC far. Some have managed to get E8xxx chips working but it's hit-and-miss. Good old AB9 Pro.

Tough luck!
When i5 hits, go grab whatever amd lowers the price of in response ... I suppose a nice 810 or 720 would be cheap enough to justify at that point. We'll see when we're there.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 1:31:43 PM

Or... I could hold out until Haswell :D 
Score
0
May 6, 2009 1:33:32 PM

randomizerOr... I could hold out until Haswell

suppose you went from a K6-2 350Mhz to your E6600 as well then? since you're so good at waiting :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 1:41:15 PM

Nope, 3700 San Diego. Clawhammer before that. I've never owned a new CPU though, always second-hand. This one has lasted me almost as long as my Thunderbird.
Score
0
May 6, 2009 2:29:41 PM

That's only saying something if your tbird lasted longer than mine! I blew mine after about 4 months running 1.4ghz in the first half of 2001.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 9:44:49 PM

I find it extremely annoying that Intel disables VT and NX Bit and other features on some CPUs. AMD doesn't do that.

I'm going AMD next time.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2009 11:39:24 PM

neiroatopelccThat's only saying something if your tbird lasted longer than mine! I blew mine after about 4 months running 1.4ghz in the first half of 2001.

My t-bird is still going after 8 years. Granted the ~20% OC in the last couple has caused degradation. I used to run it at 969MHz (up from 800 stock), then 958, 936 and finally back down to 900 after it decided not to POST the other day causing the BIOS to reset to what it thinks is stock. I do so love being able to change the multi with DIP switches (pencil multi unlocks FTW). All these fancy BIOS settings aren't as fun as flicking switches.
Score
0
May 7, 2009 3:40:35 AM

Q6600/6700 YES
Q8200/8200S/8300/8400/8400S NO

The Quad 8000 series was released 1-2 years after the introduction of the Quad 6000 series (depending on revision/model) yet lacks the Intel VT feature. Not exactly forward thinking Intel!
Score
1
May 7, 2009 4:50:09 AM

intel fail.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 7, 2009 5:57:15 AM

Cletus_slackjawdQ6600/6700 YESQ8200/8200S/8300/8400/8400S NOThe Quad 8000 series was released 1-2 years after the introduction of the Quad 6000 series (depending on revision/model) yet lacks the Intel VT feature. Not exactly forward thinking Intel!

It makes perfect sense if you look at it this way. The E6000 series has VT, the E4000 does not. The E8000 has VT (except the E8190 but it's an oddball), the E7000 series does not. The Q9000 series has VT, the Q8000 series does not. Notice the pattern? The "low-end" parts don't have it. The Q6000 series didn't really have a low-end counterpart to lack VT.
Score
0
!