2015 VM Benchmarks: Parallels 11 vs. Fusion 8 vs. VirtualBox 5
Passmark PerformanceTest 8.0
Similar to PCMark, Passmark PerformanceTest 8.0 is another benchmark that aims to take an overall look at system performance. It measures CPU, 2D graphics, 3D graphics, and memory performance to calculate an overall Passmark rating, which forms the basis of the Passmark benchmark database. Results are reported both as an overall score and as individual scores within each testing category. A higher score equals better performance.
Note that our VirtualBox VM would not initiate ether of the Passmark graphics tests, and crashed during the CPU test, leaving us with little in the way of meaningful results. VirtualBox is therefore omitted from the chart below.
Parallels 11 and Fusion 8 achieve similar scores in all tests except 3D graphics, and this gap is the primary factor in Parallels’ overall score advantage. Unlike some benchmarks that end immediately if the system being tested fails or cannot complete a certain part of the benchmark, the Passmark test will allow the benchmark process to continue and merely penalize the score of the system in the failed or incomplete test. In the case of the Passmark 3D graphics test, the Fusion 8 VM wouldn’t enable anti-aliasing when the test called for it, and so Passmark downgraded Fusion’s score, which is the main cause of the difference.
It should be noted that Passmark PerformanceTest also includes a disk test, but we have excluded it from these charts due to an issue that incorrectly deflates disk performance in Boot Camp and our observation of wild inconsistencies in the disk numbers reported for our virtual machines with, for example, one test reporting a result five times higher than a subsequent test, even when all efforts were made to disable or minimize OS caching that could interfere with the test. For this reason, we feel that the Passmark PerformanceTest disk benchmark is unreliable for testing purposes, and we’ve therefore omitted it from our result chart. Those interested in disk performance can check out our dedicated File Transfer testing on page 10.
Table of Contents
[one_half padding=”0 5px 20px 0″]
1. Introduction
2. Test Setup & Methodology
3. Geekbench
4. 3DMark
5. FurMark OpenGL
6. Cinebench R15
7. PCMark 8
8. Passmark PerformanceTest
[/one_half]
[one_half_last padding=”0 0px 20px 5px”]
9. Video Encoding
10. File Transfers
11. USB 3.0 Speed
12. Virtual Machine Management
13. Battery Life
14. Mac Pro: Gaming
15. Mac Pro: CPU
16. Conclusions
[/one_half_last]
28 thoughts on “2015 VM Benchmarks: Parallels 11 vs. Fusion 8 vs. VirtualBox 5”
* ESXi with macOS guest
Has anyone else notices that Fusion runs a bit “hotter” than Parallels? I find that opening up Fusion to Win 7 or Win 10 automatically gets the temp up at least 20 degrees (F) or so on my rMBP (2015) set for 2 of 4 cores and 8 of 16 gigs of the RAM allocated. This is very disappointing. I have zero issue with the VMware offering (used it years ago) save for this need to use more energy than Parallels. I only use Windows for a couple of apps but I would be worried about adding a more CPU intensive app if heat is generated like this at a greater scale.
Any thoughts or confirmation of Fusion running hotter?
On my current setup it seems to take an eternity for the memory on my Windows VM to be filled with all the data it needs (I need to have a SQL server and a related application running on my Windows OS). Are there any good metrics on how long it takes for the OS to load up files from the drive into memory?
PS: Hard drive is a traditional drive, system report describes as APPLE HDD ST1000DM003
1) The exact models and specifications for the testing hardware are listed in the article, along with the methodology used for the tests. You’ll find this information on the ironically named “Test Setup & Methodology” page.
2) We submitted our results and methodology to both Parallels and VMware to give each company a chance to respond. Neither company claimed that our testing procedure or the configuration of our virtual machines were incorrect or unfair.
3) 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.
4) These products, and our review, are primarily targeted at consumers. That’s why we used both a MacBook Pro and mid-level Mac Pro in the tests. 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. In general, however, I hope you’ll agree that your specific configuration isn’t applicable to ~99% of users.
I didn’t try any hard-core games, as I don’t use the machine for that purpose. However, multiple version of Windows (XP, 7, 10) ran faster and smoother overall in Parallels for general use in my experience.
Having said that, I had some trouble with Parallels recognizing certain USB devices that Fusion did not have trouble with. Complained about it to Parallels, and they’ve recently pushed out a new release that addressed and fix those problems, so I appreciate their customer support.
Good article, thanks!
VM Capabilities
VM Capabilities
You are forgetting one major thing: Fusion and Parallels are designed to integrate Windows with OS X. VirtualBox is designed to virtualise an entire machine as if it were 100% separate, no integration at all.
It would be worth seeing how Parallels & Fusion (or even Virtualbox, but I assume it’ll look absolutely terrible as far as performance goes) similarly act under a multi-chip host environment to see how they negotiate allocations between multiple physical chips, as opposed to threads all being sent to the same chip.
I’m an enthusiast of fusion 8 and a user fro version 5. This last release is a great goal!
Overall content on Tekrevue is very solid. I enjoy reading OS X tips mostly.
Thanks guys!:)