Benchmark: Parallels, Fusion, and VirtualBox: How Do They Compare?

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
With all the benchmark tests done, it’s time to revisit our original question.

Do the three major players in virtualization on the Mac (Parallels Desktop for Mac, VMWare Fusion, and Sun VirtualBox) live up to the promise of near-native performance?

The answer is a mixed bag. None of the virtualization candidates in our GeekBench tests were able to measure up to the performance of the host Mac Pro. The best result was recorded by Fusion, which was able to achieve nearly 68.5% of the host’s performance. Parallels was close behind at 66.7%. Bringing up the rear was VirtualBox, at 57.4%.

When we looked at the results of CineBench, which uses a more real-world test for rendering images, they were very close to the host’s score. Once again, Fusion was at the top of the rendering tests, achieving 94.9% of the host’s performance. Parallels followed at 92.1%. VirtualBox couldn’t reliably complete the rendering test, knocking it out of contention. In one iteration of the rendering test, VirtualBox reported that it performed 127.4% better than the host, while in others, it was unable to start or finish.

The shading test, which looks at how well the graphics card performs using OpenGL, fared the worst among all of the virtual environments. The best performer was Parallels, which reached 42.3% of the capabilities of the host. VirtualBox was second at 31.5%; Fusion came in third at 25.4%.

Picking an overall winner is something we will leave to the end user. Each product has its pluses and minuses, and in many cases, the benchmark numbers are so close that repeating the tests could change the standings.

What the benchmark test scores do show is that universally, the ability to make use of the native graphics card is what holds the virtual environment back from being a full replacement for a dedicated PC. That being said, a more modern graphics card than we have here could produce higher performance figures in the shading test, especially for Fusion, whose developer suggests higher performance graphics cards for best results.

You will notice that some test combinations (virtual environment, Windows version, and benchmark test) displayed problems, either unrealistic results or failure to complete a test. These types of results should not be used as indicators of problems with a virtual environment. Benchmark tests are unusual applications to try to run in a virtual environment. They are designed to measure the performance of physical devices, which the virtual environment may not allow them to access. This is not a failure of the virtual environment, and in real-world use, we have not experienced problems with the vast majority of Windows applications running under a virtual system.

All of the virtual environments we tested (Parallels Desktop for Mac 5.0, VMWare Fusion 3.0, and Sun VirtualBox 3.0) provide good performance and stability in daily use, and should be able to serve as your primary Windows environment for most day-to-day applications.
>

So I have tried both of these virtualization solutions for MacOS Snow Leopard and the winner is... VMware by a landslide. Not because of performance. VMware's performance is acceptable for my purposes but I can definitely tell that I'm running in a virtualized environment. But, rather, because VMware WORKS, and Parallels doesn't. That's the bottom line. I can go into more detail, but I'm just too frustrated with Parallels right now and would use language not appropriate for polite conversation. Having Parallels crash my computer *TWICE*, and lock up three different times, simply does not make me happy.
I am saddened to say this, because I've owned Parallels since version 2.0, but this is it. This is the end. They are not getting any more money from me. Each new release of Parallels they promise that they got it right this time. Each time, they break things badly -- for example, in Parallels 4, one of my mapping programs ended up going BLAMMO unless I turned off mouse pointer acceleration in the Windows control panel, and then the Parallels device driver simply refused to display any mouse pointer at all. Meanwhile VMware Fusion 3 is a rock solid product. It might be slightly slower than Parallels on some benchmarks (hard to tell, I could never keep Parallels running long enough to run the benchmarks I was wanting to run), but it *works*, and the integration between Windows and MacOS Snow Leopard is quite good, no problems with cut-and-paste or sharing files between Windows and MacOS or anything like that. The competition between VMware and Parallels is over, and Parallels is done. Finished. Kaput. They had first mover advantage, and like Netscape with web browsers, simply failed to execute.

Which reminds me of the time that my manager was the guy who ran Netscape's development process into the dirt. Needless to say the common Linux fanboy notion that Microsoft ran Netscape out of business is utter nonsense -- Netscape's browser technology disintegrated without any help from Microsoft at all. Their technology simply disintegrated under the weight of too many idiotic false deadlines and hacks, and the manager who did that then did the same thing for my then-employer's development process. But that's another ugly tale that tends to evoke unwise language so I'll do something a bit more abstract about deadlines and why they're both useful and, in some cases, toxic.

-EG

Numbers from Windows Experience quickie benchmark:

VMware 3:
Processor: 5.9
Memory: 3.9
Graphics: 2.9
Gaming graphics: 3.4
Primary hard disk: 6.3
Parallels 5:
Processor: 4.5
Memory: 3.9
Graphics: 2.9
Gaming graphics: 4.1
Primary hard disk: 5.9
Parallels has somewhat better 3D performance, somewhat poorer performance on processor and hard drive tests, same as VMware elsewhere. Parallels is probably better if you want to play games, but that's why Boot Camp was invented...
>
 

Mamajyot

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
839
I use parallels on an iMac with 4gig ram using windows xp and it's been brilliant since installation....
 

Synaesthesia

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
5,685
VMWare has been completely solid for me. I used Parallels until version 3 and it was quite good. Heard some people had issues with 4 and that 5 is somewhat buggy.

Ars Technica have got some good reviews ...
 

Mamajyot

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
839
I currently am using Parallels 4 and not buggy @ all.
Actually windows runs faster on my iMac than the pc.

I would prefer to abandon windows totally but alas i cant.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
I'm using virtualbox, I have the trials for parallels 5 and vmware 3 going to test them both then decide if one is worth paying for.
 

Artagra

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
206
We needed windows virtualisation at Prophecy for our live chat application (running in Windows 7 Starter Edition) - we tested both Virtual Box, Parallels and VMWare.

Virtual box is good - infact, great for the price - but if it's an app you use often, rather get one of the other two - they are more stable, and also quicker.

Parallels and VMware seemed very similar to me, for our needs - we went for VMware because they had a special on at the time that resulted in a per licence cost nearly half that of VMware.

To be honest, I would say install all three and try them with the applications you care about. Or, if you are lazy, go for whichever of VMware and Parallels is cheaper at the time :)
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
Yeah I plan to test all three, I ordered a bigger drive for my macbook from your shop to do just that.
 

Ou grote

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
15,472
VirtualBox is free - so it wins by a mile for me.

I pretty much use XP for 2 programs I can't get on a Mac.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
So I ran my own tests and Parallels looks to be faster...
Boot XP pro:
Vmware- 00:34s
Parall- 00:19
Vbox- 00:22


Photoshop launch 90MB PSD:
--
Vmware- 00:19
Parall- 00:18
Vbox- 00:18

I ran sisoft sandra benchmarks, results were about the same except for the vmware bottleneck which is the virtual hard disk throughput...

Parallels Benchmark Results
Drive Index : 85 MB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Random Access Time : 5 ms
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Vmware Benchmark Results
Drive Index : 47 MB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Random Access Time : 15 ms
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Tried Sisoft with virtualbox but got a BSOD(this was not a clean install I imported it from Linux) virtualbox is on par generally with Vmware I would say.

I'll be buying Parallels 5, but Vmware might be on top with fusion 4 when it's released. Virtualbox is perfect for those who just need the odd app to run, I'm only going to buy P5 because I can't get shared folders to work nicely with virtualbox additions after 2.0.4.

Specs:
13" macbook late 2007 2Ghz
4GB Ram
500GB WDC WD5000BEVT
OSX 10.6.2

--
Vmare fusion 3.0.0
Parallels 5.0.9
Virtualbox 3.1.0

Edit:
I decided to make a clean machine for virtualbox and I'm impressed, the speeds are much better and shared folders seem to work perfecty now. I might hold of parallels 5 I think.
Edit2:
Virtualbox outperformed both Vmware and P5 using sisoft on a clean install, I suspect it's not a very accurate test though.
 
Last edited:

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
I think I'm going to purchase parallels 5, Vbox seems to chew the CPU at times when it's meant to be idle.
 

PeterCH

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
18,371
VirtualBox is free - so it wins by a mile for me.

I pretty much use XP for 2 programs I can't get on a Mac.

Use VMware Fusion for 1 program. However, may use it for AnyDVD HD and BD watching.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462
I was not sure if Parallels would be worth it over virtualbox but now that I bought it and have used it long enough it definitely is a major improvement, my mac does not get as hot and it integrates nicely. Virtualbox is still good for the casual user though but If you want to use a Windows app as if it were native then Parallels is a good choice... I was not really impressed with VMware to be honest.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,462

Yes I know about the review but I ran my own tests for what I plan to use my VM for and Parallels was far better.

Edit: the ars review says it's buggy but I have no issues, I have the latest version which patched a few bugs around November.
 
Last edited:
Top