1 |
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 02:44:20PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > I'm currently holding out on my Core2 though, because Haswell is on the |
4 |
> > doorstep, and I first wanna see what the market has to offer. The CPU part |
5 |
> > might not gain much in performance, but the graphics part got a big boost and |
6 |
> > all models support VT-d now (according to cpu-world.com). Plus theoretically |
7 |
> > I'm a bit more future-proof due to the new socket (which is probably the most |
8 |
> > annoying thing about the Intel world, compared to AMD). |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Be very careful. This laptop's processor does not have VT-x...and that |
12 |
> bit me. |
13 |
|
14 |
At some point I found out that on my laptop I couldn't use VT-x either, even |
15 |
though the processor was supposed to support it. Doing a bit of digging in the |
16 |
tubes I found out that on many laptop it was disabled, and naturally the |
17 |
there was no option in the BIOS to enable it (even though it is a Pro line |
18 |
model, Samsung P50 for those who are interested). Thankfully, I found a |
19 |
(Windows) tool that would change that by doing some NVRAM voodoo. |
20 |
|
21 |
> […] |
22 |
> If buying an Intel part, I'd be very, very careful to make sure that it |
23 |
> supported all the features I want. I've been bit by that on this |
24 |
> laptop...I had no idea it wouldn't have VT-x. |
25 |
|
26 |
Well, in my (our?) case, it's a BIOS issue. I don't expect such issues for |
27 |
desktop systems which you built from scratch yourself. I wouldn't see a point |
28 |
for the manufacturer to artificially reduce functionality, because here it is |
29 |
very easy to buy a directly competing product. But I think I'm getting OT. |
30 |
-- |
31 |
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ |
32 |
Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service. |
33 |
|
34 |
In plumbing, a straight flush is better than a full house. |