Both Windows 7 & attempts at running the Windows 10 preview were so terrible I gave up trying to run them with any more than a single allocated core on the Mac Pro (whereas my i7 MacBook Pro with a single-chip 8-thread CPU can easily virtualize up to 8 cores with no evident performance hit). ReplyĪny chance you could gain access to a multi-processor (read: 2 physical processor chips) Mac Pro for a similar comparison? Virtualbox has a blatant issue ( ) negotiating multicore setups in a multiple CPU host (experienced this myself with the dual-CPU 2008 Mac Pro), where the virtualized guest suffers a huge performance hit if you’ve set it up with more than one virtual core. But for my point of view it’s obvious: Parallels beats VMWare Fusion. ![]() The only thing I don’t love is that I had to upgrade. It just took so much much much longer time then it did in Parallels 9! So now I just upgrade to Parallels 11: I love it! Boot-up time, Visual Studio performance, … I love it. I’m not even talking about compiling some code: very disappointing. Then… opening a Visual Studio project: disappointing. ![]() I first thought: OK, maybe VMWare tools have to be installed first but no: even after rebooting several times: boot-up time kept on being disappointing. But then… Starting up time: disappointing by all means. But I thought: let’s try it fist so I installed the trial of Fusion 8… This was so disappointing for me… First I imported the existing Parallels virtual machine and converted it which went really smooth. ![]() Especially with their Parallels to VMWare upgrade offering. So I was holding my credit card ready in my hand, ready to pay for Fusion 8. Also because I did not like it I had to pay to upgrade my Parallels license if I wanted to upgrade Mac OS to OS X El Captain… I don’t like this kind of “you have to”‘s. I’ve been a Parallels 9 user and was about to upgrade to VMWare Fusion 8 after reading several reviews. In general, however, I hope you’ll agree that your specific configuration isn’t applicable to ~99% of users. If you’d like us to conduct future tests on your custom Mac Pro (I say “custom” because the Mac Pro you describe in your other comment - 2 x 6-core hyperthreaded 3.33GHz - is not a configuration Apple ever shipped), then please send it to us and we’ll be happy to do the additional testing. That’s why we used both a MacBook Pro and mid-level Mac Pro in the tests. ![]() Neither company claimed that our testing procedure or the configuration of our virtual machines were incorrect or unfair.ģ) Other than providing licenses for both Fusion 8 and Parallels Desktop 11 for our tests, TekRevue was not remunerated by either company in any way, nor were the tests conducted or guided by anyone outside of TekRevue.Ĥ) These products, and our review, are primarily targeted at consumers. You’ll find this information on the ironically named “Test Setup & Methodology” page.Ģ) We submitted our results and methodology to both Parallels and VMware to give each company a chance to respond. Let me clarify for you:ġ) The exact models and specifications for the testing hardware are listed in the article, along with the methodology used for the tests. Here, Fusion trails Boot Camp by 13.8 percent in multi-core and 19.2 percent in single-core, suggesting that there’s a limit to how efficient Parallels and Fusion can be with so many cores at their disposal. In that test, Fusion also came out on top, but trailed Boot Camp by only 0.6 percent in the multi-core test, and by 4.1 percent in single-core. One interesting result from this test, however, is the difference in performance between Boot Camp and the VMs as compared to the same test on the MacBook Pro. Our tests conclude with Cinebench, where Fusion 8 narrowly beats Parallels 11 in both multi-core and single-core rendering.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |