Got a tip for us? Share it...

Boot Camp vs Parallels vs VMware Fusion Benchmarks

MacTech performed an exhaustive set of benchmarks comparing Parallels, VMWare Fusion and Boot Camp to run Windows on a Mac.

To tackle this problem, MacTech undertook a huge benchmarking project starting in September. The goal was to see how Boot Camp, VMware Fusion, and Parallels performed on different levels of Mac hardware, covering both Windows XP and Vista, and comparing that to a baseline PC running Windows.


Doing such an exhaustive comparison resulted in 19 configurations tested with over 2500 tests to be completed. They tested 3 different broad scenarios: one step tests, multi-step tasks between Mac OS X and Windows, and quantitiative benchmarks on a MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro and a Fujitsu Lifebook A6025.

One Step Tests: In XP, Parallels is 17% faster than VMWare Fusion on XP and 1% faster than Boot Camp. In Vista, VMware Fusion ran 46% slower than Boot Camp, and Parallels ran 44% slower than VMware Fusion.
Multi Step (Cross platform) Tasks: Parallels was 6x faster than VMWare on XP, and 5.2x faster on Vista.

A number of application specific benchmarks were also undertaken using Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, Internet Explorer and more. These results are detailed in their article along with relevant graphs.

Their final conclusion, however, sums up the results as follows:

... both VMware Fusion and Parallels performed well, and were a good user experience. That said, Parallels was somewhat faster in general than VMware Fusion for XP. If you want the best virtualization performance for Vista, then VMware Fusion is your choice.

Of course, if you are not interested in coexistance with Mac OS X, naturally, Boot Camp is your best option.

Note: both Parallels and VMware Fusion have been updated since these benchmarks were performed. Since VMware has multi-core support, the author speculates that specific multi-core tasks may perform better on VMware than Parallels, but these scenarios were not tested. In the tests they did perform, however, they saw no speed advantage from VMware's multicore support. That being said these earlier Crave benchmarks suggest that the VMware multicore support is a substantial advantage when performing their multimedia multitasking test.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

54 months ago
Definitely worth knowing these benchmarks.

Good work Parallels.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago
i suppose as a comparison of the 3 mac products it makes sense, but i don't understand a benchmark of a 1.86 machine when the Apple machines are substantially faster. calling any of the apple solutions faster than windows seem inappropriate unless the benchmark machine is the same speed--or at least much closer to it. and testing a desktop against a laptop? why not benchmark a desktop win machine?
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago
I originally thought that I had made a mistake when buying parallels as VMware was a lot cheaper. Guess i did make the right decision.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago
Very interesting. I was about to purchase VMWare based on this: http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9760910-1.html

-- N
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago
The article says this was done in September. And from the article it states:

"We tested VMware Fusion 1.0 (51348)"

Since then, VMware Fusion 1.1 has been released and I've noticed a huge speed increase.

I used Parallels at one point (before version 3.0 came out) and it wasn't something I was happy with. I never used version 3.0, so maybe the user experience is better now.

But having put VMware Fusion through my own paces, XP, Fedora 7 and Vista are all very fast on my 2gb MBP 15" CD. Having Windows for the few things I need it for, available at just a few clicks, is nice.

I'd like to see them go through the same benchmarks and tests with the latest version of Fusion. I bet the results will be a lot better when compared to Parallels.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago
the only key thing they left out was gaming i think thats another key thing people will wanna look at too :confused:
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago


In XP, Parallels is 17% faster than VMWare Fusion on XP and 1% faster than Boot Camp.

Wait... faster than Boot Camp?
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago

Wait... faster than Boot Camp?


Yeah i noticed that...it doesn't make sense.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago
This is really good to know. Both virtualization products have their strong points, but since I only use XP Pro and I have absolutely no plans of "upgrading" (I use that term very loosely) to Vista, Parallels is definitely the way to go for me then at least anyway.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
54 months ago
>In XP, Parallels is 17% faster than VMWare Fusion on XP and 1% faster than >Boot Camp. In Vista, VMware Fusion ran 46% slower than Boot Camp, and >Parallels ran 44% slower than VMware Fusion.

Ohmy! can someone do the math for me? Who wrote this? Thanks for making us all think very hard.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives

[ Read All Comments ]