Article archive
TweetFollow Us on Twitter

Article archive

Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs. VMware Fusion

Volume Number: 26
Issue Number: 01
Column Tag: Virtualization

Head-to-Head: Parallels Desktop for Mac vs. VMware Fusion

How do VMware Fusion 3 and Parallels Desktop 5 for Mac compare?

By Neil Ticktin, Editor-in-Chief/Publisher

Start | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Launch and CPU Tests

There are three situations in which users commonly launch a virtual machine:

  • Launch the virtual machine from "off" mode, including a full Windows boot

  • Launch the virtual machine from a suspended state, and resume from suspend (Adam)

  • Launch the virtual machine from a suspended state, and resume from suspend (Successive)

For the first test, we started at the Finder and launched the virtualization application, which then immediately launched the virtual machine. The visual feedback is fairly different between Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion when Windows first starts up. Windows actually does its startup for quite some time after reaching the desktop. In some cases, it can take minutes for Windows to complete its boot process. Most users don't care if things continue, so long as they aren't held up.

As a result, we focused on timing to the point of actually accomplishing something. In this case, we hovered over the Task Bar icons and launched the Windows Security Center window. The test ended when the window started to render. This gave us a real world scenario of being able to actually do something as opposed to Windows just looking like it was booted.

The primary difference between the last two types of VM launch test is that the computer is fully rebooted (both the virtual machine as well as Mac OS X) in between the "Adam" tests. The successive tests are launching the virtual machines and restoring them without restarting the Mac in between.

Successive tests benefit from both Mac OS X and possibly virtual machine caching, and are significantly faster. But, you may only see these types of situations if you constantly are going in and out of your virtual machine.

VMware reports that their longer suspend time is due to a design for "better correctness and to avoid user crashes." Furthermore, VMware commented that Fusion's suspend solution "includes a 3D state as part of the resume so applications can resume where left off, resulting in a slightly longer suspend/resume time." While that may be the case, we didn't experience problems on either product when resuming from suspend, even with 3D games.

As with all of our tests, we perform these tests multiple times to handle the variability that can occur. Of these, we took the best results for each product.

End result for each of these sets of tests (geomean across Mac models) is:

  • Launch the virtual machine including a full Windows boot:

    • XP: Parallels Desktop 11.9% faster (the actual difference was 4.5 seconds faster, fastest test: 33.57 seconds)

    • Windows 7: Parallels Desktop 50.1% faster (33 seconds faster, fastest: 32.99 seconds)

  • Launch the virtual machine, and resume from suspend (Adam)

    • XP: Parallels Desktop 20.2% faster (2.6 seconds faster, fastest: 13.1 seconds)

    • Windows 7: Parallels Desktop 14.5% faster (3.1 seconds faster, fastest: 18.4 seconds)

  • Launch the virtual machine, and resume from suspend (Successive)

    • XP: Parallels Desktop 32.6% faster (1.7 seconds faster, fastest: 3.6 seconds)

    • Windows 7: Parallels Desktop 45.2% faster (3.4 seconds faster, fastest: 4 seconds)

  • Suspend the virtual machine

    • XP: Parallels Desktop 49.2% faster (2.5 seconds faster, fastest: 2.59 seconds)

    • Windows 7: Parallels Desktop 58.7% faster (3.9 seconds faster, fastest: 2.78 seconds)

Figure 4: Windows OS Launch Performance

Clearly, machines with more memory take longer to restore and that accounts for some of the differences (remember, we selected RAM configurations based on VMware Fusion's default). One thing to remember as a virtualization user is that if you are going in and out of a VM often, you may want to think about using less RAM, not more. In fact, you should just use as little as you need any way for the best experience under either virtualized environment. (We suggest 512MB to 1GB for most people.)

Most benchmarking suites measure CPU performance using file compression as at least one part of their analysis. We did the same.

  • Compressing files using the built-in Windows compression tools

    • XP: Parallels Desktop 5% faster (8 seconds faster, fastest: 151 seconds)

    • Windows 7: Parallels Desktop 7.7% faster (15.9 seconds faster, fastest: 191 seconds)

As a matter of interest, we used compression instead of decompression, because with today's fast computers, decompression is actually much closer to a file copy than it is to CPU work. Compression requires the system to perform analysis to do the compression, and is therefore a better measurement of CPU.

Figure 5: Virtual Machine CPU Performance


Start | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 
AAPL
$463.97
Apple Inc.
+4.29
GOOG
$609.09
Google Inc.
+12.76
MSFT
$30.20
Microsoft Corpora
-0.04
MacNews Search:
Community Search:

Reckless Racing 2 Review
Reckless Racing 2 Review By Greg Dawson on February 3rd, 2012 Our Rating: :: RUBBIN' AND RACIN'iPhone App - Designed for the iPhone, compatible with the iPad The original Reckless Racing game set the bar for down and dirty iOS racing. Reckless Racing 2 has raised the bar even higher.   | Read more »
Five For Friday: Week of February 3
Another week has left us behind along with the first month of the year. As always with the arrival of Friday, we take a few moments to round up five of the most interesting apps and games that we’ve yet to cover in a more extensive form. There will be fun to be had and new recipes to be learnt, amongst other things. Remarks | Read more »
GHOST TRICK: Phantom Detective Review
GHOST TRICK: Phantom Detective Review By Dan Lee on February 3rd, 2012 Our Rating: :: TRICKYUniversal App - Designed for iPhone and iPad Use “Ghost Tricks” to possess objects and solve a murder.   | Read more »
Launch Center Launches New Third Party A...
Launch Center has gotten a major new update that brings new automatic app detection. While the app launched with support for built-in notifications, now the app supports launching third-party apps with specific commands, that can be scheduled to appear as notifications on iPhone and iPod touch. | Read more »
Spy Mouse Feels the Love With New Valent...
EA and Firemint’s Spy Mouse has an update out now that’s designed to be more appropriate for this time of year, with Valentine’s Day coming up. Love is in the air, and while the cats in Agent Squeek’s life are still out to keep him from getting his cheese, everything is a lot more lovey-dovey. The app icon shows not a stern and focused Agent... | Read more »
Panorama 360 Camera Review
Panorama 360 Camera Review By Jennifer Allen on February 2nd, 2012 Our Rating: :: CREATIVEUniversal App - Designed for iPhone and iPad Creating a panoramic image just got a whole lot simpler.   | Read more »
Gravity Lander Review
Gravity Lander Review By Rob Rich on February 2nd, 2012 Our Rating: :: SHORT FLIGHTiPhone App - Designed for the iPhone, compatible with the iPad Get three cosmonauts to land on the surface of Mars safely. It’s significantly harder than it sounds.   | Read more »
Fly With Me!: Flying To The App Store To...
Following a familiar yet addictive path, EA Mobile’s latest release Fly With Me! is an endless runner – or should I say flyer – title. Players take the role of a bird as they avoid hurdles like trees, geysers and Venus fly trap, while they also chomp their way through the many bees in their path. It’s easy to get the hang of with regular taps to... | Read more »
Windosill Review
Windosill Review By Dan Lee on February 2nd, 2012 Our Rating: :: SURREALiPad Only App - Designed for the iPad Explore and solve puzzles in a dream-like world.   Developer: Vectorpark Price: $2.99 Version Reviewed: 1.0.19 Device Reviewed On: iPad | Read more »
Terra Noctis: Free Dreaming Promises Ple...
When I first played Terra Noctis, I came away with an incredibly positive opinion. Sure it had its share of problems. In fact, it had a ton of small ones. However it was still a cool platformer that was well worth the somewhat hefty (comparably) price of $2.99 at the time. The cost has dropped down to $0.99 since then, but even that might be “too... | Read more »
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.