I know it'd likely be more cost effective to buy a new system with AMD-V or Intel VT-x, but to prove it, I need to know if there are any 939 socket chips that feature AMD-V and if so what they are. This would allow one to run a windows server guest under Xen.

This question will likely be of little use three years on, when you can't even reliably buy 393 socket chips. But I thought I'd mention that yes, the context was that I owned a socket 939 system and wanted to start running linux primarily with a Xen guest hosted Windows. For that I needed AMD-V, but it language on AMD's site was that all their chps support it, which it's clear from these answers that "ALL" wasn't including 939 chips.

6 Answers 6


There are none. The AMD-V feature was introduced on Athlon processors that used Socket AM2 (the successor of Socket 939) and on Opterons that used Socket AM2 and Socket F.

Socket 939

AMD Virtualization

List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors

List of AMD Opteron microprocessors

  • I bought into the 939 chipset before Pacifica released hoping that AMD would release at least one more generation of 939/940 with that technology. They didn't. You are S.O.L.
    – Chris K
    Jul 31, 2009 at 17:48
  • 1
    Yah I bought a 939 bought years ago thinking they would release a few more for the platform. AM2 got all the glory.
    – Troggy
    Jul 31, 2009 at 19:13

This link states that amd-v is not in any socket 939/940 opterons. Wikipedia's list of AMD processors also states that the amd-v feature is absent in any socket 939/940 processors as well.


I am not sure of the entire range of 939 processors, but this was a review I found reviewing the technology and amd was quoted:


“With the exceptions of Sempron-branded processors and Turion K8 Rev E processors, all notebook processors shipped by AMD include AMD-V and therefore support Windows 7 XP mode."

"With the exceptions of Sempron-branded processors and pre-Rev F Athlon branded processors, all of the desktop processors shipped by AMD include AMD-V and therefore support Windows 7 in XP mode."

"Also, all AMD Opteron processors shipped by AMD from Rev F forward include AMD-V."

The wiki mentions no 939 compatibility though.


"On May 23, 2006, AMD released the Athlon 64 ("Orleans"), the Athlon 64 X2 ("Windsor") and the Athlon 64 FX ("Windsor") as the first AMD processors to support this technology.

AMD-V capability is also available on Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2 family of processors with "F" or "G" stepping on socket AM2 (not 939), Turion 64 X2, Opteron 2nd generation[1] and 3rd-generation[2], Phenom and Phenom II processors. Sempron processors do not include support for AMD-V."

Hope that helps your case.


I know it'd likely be more cost effective to buy a new system with AMD-V or Intel VT-x

AMD is cost effective. Intel, not so much. That's not to say Intel's processors are worse, but in terms of costs they're more expensive than AMD.

.. but to prove it, I need to know if there are any 939 socket chips that feature AMD-V and if so what they are.

Socket 939 or 940? Well, I highly recommend Socket F (barcelona/shanghai/istanbul all support AMD-V and are excellent for virtualization), but if it's 939 you need, check out this chart on wikipedia.

From what I can gather, the 939 opterons are all 1xx (1 CPU) per board and none of them list AMD-V compatibility. I can't believe I've never wondered if you can run virtualization w/o the extensions for the CPU. My guess is that the latest virtualization products need the extensions so it's a requirement for you.

It sounds like you have a 939, but you want to upgrade if you need to. If I can sway your decision, I highly recommend AMD over Intel, especially if this is for home use (I can't quite tell if your post is for business or home). AMD is usually more cost effective, has better upgradability (IMO - less socket changes, consistent memory requirements, etc.), and the energy-efficient Opterons are worth every penny.

AMD uses DDR2 (registered ECC) for DIMMs so the memory is bit pricer than some Intel solutions, but for virtualization servers, don't skimp on memory. They also have a fairly good array of CPUs for specific socket solutions such as the 1000 series (1 CPU/board), 2000 series (2 CPUs/board), 8000 series (4 CPUs/board). I can't tell what you're trying to virtualiztaion wise but AMDs product line (to me) is more cost effective and appropriate for what sounds like your first venture into the world of Xen.

Damn, I sound like an AMD rep! I'm not, but I admit I am a fan of the Opteron line these days.

  • I have been a huge 4P Opteron plan for a while, but the numbers say that Intel's Nehalem (Xeon 5500) 2P platform beats 4P Opterons. Intel has finally implemented NUMA and will now compete in the higher end of the x86-64 market.
    – aharden
    Jul 31, 2009 at 18:49
  • I don't doubt the performance factor of Xeons in comparison to Opterons as higher L2 caches definitely give Xeons an edge (amongst other factors). But in terms of cost effectiveness, Xeons cost more than their Opteron counterparts, use more power, and (arguably) have increased costs due to DDR3 and newer chipsets being designed for it. I can understand performance being a major factor if you're running database servers, data warehouses, ETL, or other processing intensive activities. But in the general scheme of things Opterons compete in the value market pretty damn well.
    – osij2is
    Jul 31, 2009 at 19:28
  • Hi there; it's been like three years, and I thought, just for laughs, I'd let you know that I never actually ended up upgrading my home machine. It's still a 939 single core machine. I wonder if looking at how AMD and Intel have compared over the last 3 years you still feel like AMD is the better buy. At work I have a pretty neat 6 core Xeon E5-1660; and it's been impressive; but yeah, cost wise, I'm not sure.
    – dlamblin
    Aug 26, 2012 at 1:25
  • I do feel the strictly in terms of cost AMD is still a better bet. I'll admit that even I switched to the Ivy Bridge (3770) CPU and Z77 for my home system (with GeForce GTX 670). It was not a cheap endeavor. But for my servers, AMD all the way. A 2P Opteron 2346HE, a Phenom II x700e and a Phenom II 960T. Those servers were relatively affordable and perform just fine for me.
    – osij2is
    Aug 27, 2012 at 1:19

While the Xen Wiki is good, I prefer to get info from the source:

AMD Desktop Processors:


I believe ALL current server CPUs (Opterons) support AMD-V.

Desktop comparison charts have a filter on the left, near the bottom for 'Virtualization'. Select yes to answer your question.

Some of the AM3 Sempron and newer Athlon X2 series support AMD-V.

The newly released Athlon II x4 processors (620 and 630) support AMD-V.

There are no socket 939 CPUs that support AMD-V.

And though some vendors show 1st gen phenoms as supporting virtualization, AMD says 'no'. My guess is this has something to do with the 1st gen phenom TLB bug and the use of the L3 cache when using virtualization solutions. But that's just a personal theory.

NOTE: Just because a CPU doesn't support WMD-V does NOT mean you can't still run VMware or Xen. SOME older versions that do not REQUIRE these features can still run in full virtualization mode, but performance will take a hit and they are not as scalable as a result.


depending on what you're doing, you may find that it's most cost effective to run a Host OS + Sun's VirtualBox + Guest OS, as VirtualBox does not require Intel-VT or AMD-V

  • I know this is an old answer to an even older question, but I just got here looking for information on running Windows 8 in VB on my 939 CPU. Windows 8 under VB does require VT-x or AMD-v. Oct 7, 2013 at 17:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .