CNET Labs ran some benchmarks comparing different ways to run Windows on an Intel Mac, including Boot Camp, VMware Fusion, and Parallels Desktop 3.0 , using multimedia, Photoshop, Cinebench R10, and Quake 4. Tests were run on a Mac Pro with 2 x 2.66 GHz Xeon chips (8 cores) with 2 GB of RAM. Lots of pretty graphs and commentary.[…] Thanks to petekazanjy for providing this nice story on Digg (more than 48Diggs).
What other users say about this:
petekazanjy: @Keith: If you want to make use of your Mac hardware, it seems really important that your virtualization software would utilize more than one core in a VM. Otherwise, what’s the point of snazzy hardware?
And a quick correction: VMware Fusion can utilize up to two cores in a VM, not eight. So in this case, VMware Fusion got two cores, while Parallels got one.
However, if you look at some of the tests, VMware Fusion produced 4x the performance, on double the cores.
keithmcbride: this test seemed good, but as it went on it became obvious that it was worthless. if parallels is using one core, and vmware gets 8, why is parallels expected to keep up?
even a test on a multicore macbook would have been more fair, as those only have 2 cores.
streak: Apple doesn’t sell a Mac Pro with 8 cores at 2.66 GHz. The 8-core system is 3.0 GHz. All others are 4-core.
petekazanjy: Interesting to see how multiple CPU cores really helps with certain workloads.