AMD or Intel for Virtualization IOMMU

I'm in the stages of planning out an upgrade for my current main system. I'm also planning to Migrate to Linux, Probably starting with Ubuntu because I've been running it on my laptop to test it. I'm planning on running games in a VB of Windows 7.

So I'm wondering whether the Latest Series AMD or Intel have the better Price to Performance and support for IOMMU, to pass-through the Graphics Card and IO directly to the VM, for when i game on it.

I will also be using this Machine for other VMs that i mess around with. So good performance with multiple VMs would be good as well.

I will most likely be investing anywhere from £800 to £1000 on the CPU, MoBo and the GFX card so any suggestion on that Front would be cool.

AMD: all CPU's and APU's that I know of have AMD-Vi, a.k.a. IOMMU
Intel: check for SKU specific features, VT-d and VT-x must be present to have IOMMU


Pretty much said it all !

With AMD you must check the motherboard too. Not all motherboards support AMD-Vi as i remember.


Modern ones do, only some old ones from Asus blocked it because of PCI-E multiplexing.

Same thing for Intel by the way, just that it wasn't so obvious because most users of "gaming" mobos used the Intel SKU's that don't have VT-d


Skylake pretty much got you covered wenn it comes to virtualization.
So thats what i would recommend.

1 Like

If you aren't in a rush, you could always wait for Zen. At least that's what I'd do.


Here's the thing in my opinion, you need CPU cores to have a successful KVM and run Windows + gaming in that KVM (more cores=better), bang for the buck you can't beat the AMD 8300 series CPUs, but yes they are not as efficient at handling instructions as an Intel CPU nor is the way threads are handled/processed the same, but in raw processing power and the number of cores you have to share between host and guest in my opinion AMD beats Intel in a cost per core basis.

If your planning and not in a big hurry I'd wait for Zen to see what the cost per core is going to be before committing myself on one or the other, it's only a couple more months if AMD hits it's projections.

Kudos for is the right thing to


never tried on anything but intel for cpu's. (for kvm)

Yeah more cores = better.
More memory channels = better.
More memory = better.

AMD was beating intel some time ago; but in last 2years intel kept on going (amd did not), and e5-2670's flooded the market with price tag of $50/cpu killing AMD's share completely.


Yep....if I was going Intel that would be the CPU to use....hands down the best you could use IMHO.


Well X99 with 2 gpu´s would most likely be the most ideal configuration.
You could get 1 higherend gpu to passtrough for your gaming.
And next to that you could grab a cheap gpu for just linux.
However sometimes i´m hurting my head arround this item aswell.
I mean are all the hordens needed to be taking to get this to work properly,
realy worth it vs just a simple dualboot?
Of course there are plenty of scenrio´s thinkable that it would be worth it.
But yeah.
Its of course also nice to play arround with it.

1 Like

Alright. Thanks guys for your replies. Looks like I'm going to be waiting till Zen comes out to look at what they're capable of.
Although the X99 mobo's and 2011-3 CPUs do intrest me.

Still its just in the planning phase so I can wait a couple of months to see what things are like then. Plus gives me chance to migrate my data off my system for when I make the switch fully to Linux.

1 Like

server boards are far better for this; (even C602 sandy chipsets provided full pci-e 3.0 x16 lanes, unlike customer versions)
integrated graphics are much better option; they use less resources too... generate less heat etc... your pick.

most of all its how you use your pc/server.

for me its easier to run multiple kvm's than reboot pc to enter different system because i don't want to play a game anymore and want to browse web or do something else...

1 Like