Fusion 3.0 vs. Parallels 5.0 Discussion

[robanga]

I run both. VM Fusion 3.0 runs on a 13" MacBook that runs Windows 7 from a bootcamp partition.

Parallels 5.0 runs on a Mac Mini and Windows 7 for the moment is running only as a virtual machine.

Not enough experience with the latter to make a real comparison, so I will get back to this thread in a couple of days.

 

[mcgreggor]

Parallels 5.0 performance question

Hello all,

I currently run a imac with a 2.16 processor 3gb ram and 128mb ati graphics ans 10.6 os. I have xp installed under paralles 4.0 (latest patch) and it is a bit slow (I'm being kind). The marketing hype on 5.0 is that it is faster then Boot camp (which I don't believe, I was born at night but not last night) I noticed in the thread that several of you have been involved in both betas so I'm looking for some real world advice. Is 5.0 faster then 4.0 will it make a difference on my machine? Thanks in advance!

 

[ayeying]

Hello all,

I currently run a imac with a 2.16 processor 3gb ram and 128mb ati graphics ans 10.6 os. I have xp installed under paralles 4.0 (latest patch) and it is a bit slow (I'm being kind). The marketing hype on 5.0 is that it is faster then Boot camp (which I don't believe, I was born at night but not last night) I noticed in the thread that several of you have been involved in both betas so I'm looking for some real world advice. Is 5.0 faster then 4.0 will it make a difference on my machine? Thanks in advance!

A virtual machine is only as fast as you configure it. If you give it too much memory or not enough or whatever, you'll get crap performance. I found performance between Parallels 4 and 5 to be a difference. I even found performance between Vmware Fusion 2 and 3, however, stability wise, Vmware fusion beats parallels in that. For real speed, parallels is faster, as proven in several benchmarks

 

[jav6454]

Fusion has never given me any problems. Very stable. Testing Fusion 3.0 and so far, its been great.

 

[MacsRgr8]

I also own both Parallels 5 and Fusion 3

I love both products, and I hope that they keep on competing with eachother!

The way I use them:

Parallels:
Easiest and best "normal" Windows XP experience for Mac users.

VMware Fusion:
More OS "fun".. let me explain:
I like to play around with different Operating Systems. Windows and Linux are obvious, but I adore having Rhapsody and OPENSTEP running on my Mac (see pics) aswell.
I find it easier to get these OSses working on Fusion than Parallels, and the fact that VMware also has images which are used in their Windows counterparts which can be converted to Mac-Fusion-images is very handy.

I also use Fusion to see if I can play all time ol' Windows-games. And, VMware Fusion 3, does a brilliant job in getting my fav of all time (Need For Spped 4) working PERFECTLY: DirectX7 and Force Feedback USB Wheel full supported!!

But, again.... I find the everyday Windows Virtual Machine on a Mac best on Parallels.
I also applaud Parallels for being there so quickly and first (1.0 and pre-release before that) back in the day Apple switched to x86, to help users switch from PC to Mac.

 

[willmtaylor]

???

Anyone else tried either one of them in the last few days? Tried both of the trials or anything? Still would love to hear some hands-on firsthand feedback.

wmt

 

[fiercetiger224]

Anyone else tried either one of them in the last few days? Tried both of the trials or anything? Still would love to hear some hands-on firsthand feedback.

wmt

I've tried both, and both have their advantages. Parallels tends to be a little bit faster in graphics performance, and has a small leg up on their feature set. Fusion tends to give a smoother, and more stable experience. I've tested XP, Vista and 7 64-bit editions on both. Also tested on both a Mac Pro and Macbook Pro.

What would I suggest? VMware Fusion, simply because it's more stable. I've had a few problems with Parallels, from corrupting virtual machines, to kernel panics. I've never had any of those problems with Fusion. I've been using both since their original releases. Parallels is definitely more stable than version 4.

VMware has been making virtualization products for years now, and I simply have never had any major issues with them. Their support is also top-notch. I've used VMware's products on both Windows and Linux as well.

 

[steve-p]

I've been using Parallels 4.0 without any issues for a while (XP Pro VM). There is a certain appeal to switching to VMWare though as I use that at work. Of course it's free for other platforms, but not on the Mac...

Anyway the problem I have is working out the feature differences between VMWare 3.0 and Parallels 4.0 which I am currently using, and Parallels 5.0 which is an option. All I want to know right now is what features if any I would lose by switching to VMWare 3.0 from Parallels 4.0, but working that out isn't so easy. After that, a direct comparison of everything which is unique to either product would be useful. In other words, for people considering switching one way or the other, what you would gain by switching is less important in many respects than what you might lose.

Edit: I bit the bullet and upgraded from Parallels 4.0 to 5.0 to see if the promised speed increases had materialised - they certainly have for me in XP. The apps I run are much snappier and now have pretty much the same UI and redrawing performance as running them on my real Windows desktop. They felt a bit clunky before on 4.0, so quite impressed so far. I will hold off on trying out Fusion 3.0 for a while now.

 

[applevx]

Anyone notice the TEMP diff? ----So ODD!

Hi, I am a regular mac guy with MBP late 2007 version (2.4Ghz, 4GB Ram, 256VRAM, Gforce 8600M)


I ran VMWare Fusion 3 with Windows XP SP3 guest OS. The CPU temp is around 48ºC - 50ºC, fusion's cpu usage is around 2% - 4%. Fan speed at 3000 rpm by smcFanControl.


Same as above, I ran Parallels Desktop 5, the CPU temp is 52ºC - 55ºC, Parallels cpu usage is like 1% - 1.7%.


So, can anyone please tell me why this is so odd?
The Parallels desktop 5 should make CPU cooler than VMWare fusion 3 does, but it's NOT!

 

[ayeying]

Hi, I am a regular mac guy with MBP late 2007 version (2.4Ghz, 4GB Ram, 256VRAM, Gforce 8600M)


I ran VMWare Fusion 3 with Windows XP SP3 guest OS. The CPU temp is around 48ºC - 50ºC, fusion's cpu usage is around 2% - 4%. Fan speed at 3000 rpm by smcFanControl.


Same as above, I ran Parallels Desktop 5, the CPU temp is 52ºC - 55ºC, Parallels cpu usage is like 1% - 1.7%.


So, can anyone please tell me why this is so odd?
The Parallels desktop 5 should make CPU cooler than VMWare fusion 3 does, but it's NOT!

Temperatures are caused by many factors, including your video card. You do realize you share the same heatsink with the chipset and video card. If your video card is slightly higher temp, it can cause the cpu to raise it's temperature also.

Furthermore, your temps are within acceptable limits. I wouldn't worry about it at all. My current CPU temp is at 77 deg C.

 

[DoFoT9]

Temperatures are caused by many factors, including your video card. You do realize you share the same heatsink with the chipset and video card. If your video card is slightly higher temp, it can cause the cpu to raise it's temperature also.

Furthermore, your temps are within acceptable limits. I wouldn't worry about it at all. My current CPU temp is at 77 deg C.

yup i agree with everything you said there.

the temperatures are really nothing to worry about at all around that range.

my CPU is idling on 72°C haha.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

VMware Fusion is more stable. Performance is not better than Parallels, but it doesn't lag behind by much (very negligible). VMware has been making VM software for a long time, making it the industry leader, but they never made such apps for the Mac platform. Their products are widely used in enterprises and businesses.

Parallels offers better performance (again, very negligible) but is nowhere as stable as Fusion is. They have this new feature that adds a "Mac" skin to the application, namely the top close/minimize/maximize buttons so it matches a Mac app.

I like Parallels for it's great UI work but I like stability as well. Those features are only skin-deep. I liked even more Fusion's proven technology.

 

[MBX]

Can somebody tell me who of the two (both latest versions and running Win7) wins in 3D/ OpenGL Performance?

 

[steve-p]

I like Parallels for it's great UI work but I like stability as well. Those features are only skin-deep. I liked even more Fusion's proven technology.

I use VMWare's "proven technology" at work on a variety of host and guest operating systems and it's maybe not quite as bulletproof as you seem to think it is Parallels has never crashed on me personally but a colleague did get a corrupt VM once with version 3. I wouldn't like to say that either is more stable - especially with two new versions which are an unknown quantity right now. If you want stability wait a few months until any new issues have been ironed out of either, then it's probably a non-issue in choosing between them.

 

[ayeying]

Can somebody tell me who of the two (both latest versions and running Win7) wins in 3D/ OpenGL Performance?

That would be Parallels. They have slightly better 3D performance than VMWare Fusion but no where near boot camp yet.

 

[peterho]

I did a side-by-side comparison of Windows 7 Professional on Parallel Desktop 5 and VMWare Fusion 3 yesterday. I installed fresh copies of Win7 as virtual machines on both PD5 and VM3 systems. From the installation perspective, they are equally easy and straight forward. I assigned 1 CPU and same amount of RAM (1024 GB) for each virtual machine (although 1GB is probably not enough for Win7...), and boot up only one virtual machine at a time without another system opened. No other application was running at the same time, so both systems get equal amount of resources when tested.

I have noticed slower boot up on PD5 due to the slower response from NAT service. I booted up and shut down Win7 on both systems several times, and on PD5 it takes 1 min 25 -50 sec to finally be ready for IE to work, while 52-57 sec on VM3. Shut down time is more or less the same, PD5 15.1 sec vs VM3 16.2 sec.

I have no software installed in both Win7, so have no idea how applications perform at this point. I will keep you updated. By the way, can anyone suggest some free benchmark software that I can run under both system? (or any better way to compare the performance?)

I'm using 15" UB MBP Late 2008 2.53GHz, 4GB RAM.

 

[ayeying]

I did a side-by-side comparison of Windows 7 Professional on Parallel Desktop 5 and VMWare Fusion 3 yesterday. I installed fresh copies of Win7 as virtual machines on both PD5 and VM3 systems. From the installation perspective, they are equally easy and straight forward. I assigned 1 CPU and same amount of RAM (1024 GB) for each virtual machine (although 1GB is probably not enough for Win7...), and boot up only one virtual machine at a time without another system opened. No other application was running at the same time, so both systems get equal amount of resources when tested.

I have noticed slower boot up on PD5 due to the slower response from NAT service. I booted up and shut down Win7 on both systems several times, and on PD5 it takes 1 min 25 -50 sec to finally be ready for IE to work, while 52-57 sec on VM3. Shut down time is more or less the same, PD5 15.1 sec vs VM3 16.2 sec.

I have no software installed in both Win7, so have no idea how applications perform at this point. I will keep you updated. By the way, can anyone suggest some free benchmark software that I can run under both system? (or any better way to compare the performance?)

I'm using 15" UB MBP Late 2008 2.53GHz, 4GB RAM.

That's a REALLY SLOW boot up time. I'm booting up a Windows 7 system, from start to logged in and all processes loaded within 45 seconds for both Parallels 5 and VMWare Fusion on a cleanly installed Windows 7 with nothing else. Granted I have an SSD but even booting it off a USB 2.0 ATA-6 hard drive only takes 1 minute and 30 seconds. (I have OSX Leopard 10.5.8 installed in a External 250GB hard drive for testing/diagnostic/back up purposes)

The shut down times are pretty similar to yours though.

My settings for Windows 7 when I was testing Parallels 5 and Fusion 3 was:

1 CPU, 896MB Ram Dedicated, 3D Enabled (256MB for Parallels 5), 20GB Virtual Disk Expanding

 

[jon08]

Judging from Windows 7 Experience Index stats in both VMWare and Parallels, it seems that Parallels beats VMWare hands down...

Here is what I get:

VMWare:
4,5
5,0
2,9
3,3
5,9

Parallels:
5.9
5.5
2.9
4.6
5,9

Bootcamp:
6,0
6,0
5,5
6,0
5,2

But on the other hand, when I watched PPStream through both apps, VMWare seemed to run smoother than Parallels - I don't really understand why, when the latter beats VMWare in pretty much all categories, as seen above...

Btw, I am still using Leopard, so I don't know if there is any difference on SL?

 

[willmtaylor]

Fusion 3.0 or Parallels 5.0 w/i5's & i7's

I'd be curious to see some numbers running virtualization software in some of these newly arriving i5's & i7's.

 

[ymarker]

I'd be curious to see some numbers running virtualization software in some of these newly arriving i5's & i7's.

Probably the best use of those spare cores to use them for virtualization. I'd like to give two to VM and two for host.

 

[DoFoT9]

Probably the best use of those spare cores to use them for virtualization. I'd like to give two to VM and two for host.

can you actually do that? choose the number of cores...? id give 1 core (2 threads) to VM hehe (when i order my i7 lol).

 

[ayeying]

can you actually do that? choose the number of cores...? id give 1 core (2 threads) to VM hehe (when i order my i7 lol).

It's more like, 1 Core 1 Thread. I think Parallels have 1 Core/2 Threads feature, not 100% positive. For Fusion, its 1 core/1 thread.

 

[DoFoT9]

It's more like, 1 Core 1 Thread. I think Parallels have 1 Core/2 Threads feature, not 100% positive. For Fusion, its 1 core/1 thread.

oh ok so the options are somewhat limited?

 

[ayeying]

oh ok so the options are somewhat limited?

Not really. Under 4 threads like the Core i5/i7, I think you can tell VMWare Fusion or Parallels that you want to dedicate like 2 or 3 or even 4 cores to the virtual machine. It should run because you actually have 4 threads that can be used as "cores". It's a little confusing but yeah.

I wouldn't worry about that part. Most of the time, you won't need to dedicate more than 1 core or thread to the virtual machine unless you plan on doing modeling. I only use 1 core with 512mb ram when I play sins under parallels.

 

[DoFoT9]

Not really. Under 4 threads like the Core i5/i7, I think you can tell VMWare Fusion or Parallels that you want to dedicate like 2 or 3 or even 4 cores to the virtual machine. It should run because you actually have 4 threads that can be used as "cores". It's a little confusing but yeah.

I wouldn't worry about that part. Most of the time, you won't need to dedicate more than 1 core or thread to the virtual machine unless you plan on doing modeling. I only use 1 core with 512mb ram when I play sins under parallels.

very confusing, i have no idea what you just explained lol! i completely understand threads/cores but not this. it just means i will have to try out the new parallels haha!

thanks for the info aye