New VM Player 3.0RC - Allows 4 Cores Per VM

[geokilla]

What's Flannel?

Hmm, anyone tried this on a dual core setup?

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by geokilla

What's Flannel?

I hope you're kidding; otherwise we might have to revoke your Canadianship...

Originally Posted by geokilla

Hmm, anyone tried this on a dual core setup?

What would be the point in that? The ability to run a four-core VM is useless on a dual-core CPU.

[3.0charlie]

Gained 1.2k ppd going to the new Player over the Server.

That's with 4 Clients with 4 Cores each and 2 Gb of Ram. Cooler temps by 2C.

[bissa]

if it is still at 100% load, why would there be a drop in temp?

[3.0charlie]

It has been reported as such and this is what I see through CoreTemp; can't explain why. 100% usage.

[Zero82z]

Running a single VM requires less CPU resources than running two due to lack of overhead from running the second VM. System responsiveness will be better along with the reduction in CPU temps. Power consumption should go down as well, if you have any way of measuring it.

[Eldonko]

Works great. Fired up 1 VMWare instance on my Q6600 and it does about 5k PPD plus another 7k PPD from the 250.

[Perineum]

You running at 3.6 on that Q6600?

[Eldonko]

Nope, 3.2. It's just a media/folding PC and it runs hotter than I like at 3.6

[Prof. Dr. Silver]

Hmmm this is rather disturbing:

Before: 2 VMware cores on 4 Processors = 3400 - 3600 PPD total at 2.8GHz

After: 1 VMware core on 4 Processors = 7059 PPD at 4.0GHz

So I doubled my output by running at 4.0GHz and then some? And I still have 4 processor cores left... does that mean an i7 - 860 could do 14.000 PPD???

Here's the Benchmark copy: (Mind you, the WU is not finished yet)

-- 860 - 1 --

Min. Time / Frame : 3mn 36s - 7680.00 ppd
Avg. Time / Frame : 13mn 25s - 2060.72 ppd
Cur. Time / Frame : 4mn 07s - 6716.11 ppd
R3F. Time / Frame : 3mn 52s - 7150.34 ppd
Eff. Time / Frame : 23mn 12s - 1191.72 ppd