Virtualization
Benchmark: VirtualBox vs VMware: Part2 2010
by devarni on 29 Oktober 2010, under Benchmark, Virtualization
VirtualBox vs VMware: part 2010 
Because the free Vmware Player now supports also the creating of virtual machines, it’s
time to make another short benchmark.
Guest Windows 7 64Bit Home, 2xCPU, 2GB RAM, 20GB virtual HD on 1TB Samsung Spinpoint HD
Virtual Machines (64Bit) VirtualBox 3.2.1, VMware Player 3.1.2
Windows 7 Performance Index
| VirtualBox | VMware | |
| CPU | 5,5 | 5,5 |
| RAM | 5,5 | 5,5 |
| Graphic | 1,0 | 4,2 |
| Graphic (Games) | 1,0 | 3,4 |
| Harddisk | 5,9 | 6,0 |
| Performance Index: | 1,0 | 3,4 |
Crystal Disk Mark 3.0
| VirtualBox | VmWare Player | |||
| Read | Write | Read | Write | |
| Seq | 115.8 | 34.61 | 122.1 | 54.81 |
| 512k | 60.31 | 30.80 | 43.69 | 53.45 |
| 4k | 0.858 | 0.718 | 1.004 | 11.78 |
| 4k QD32 | 0.950 | 0.911 | 1.129 | 19.13 |
Summary
There is no difference for the computing performance. VirtualBox and VMware playing at the same level.
For graphic performance/support VMware wins. VirtualBox 3D support is only rudimentary and does not work for Windows Airo (so the bad performance index for graphics).
The disk/caching performance of VMware is better.
The overall performance of VMware Player is better then VirtualBox.
If you need 3D support eg. for Windows 7 Airo as a guest, VMware is the only solution.
If you need snapshots VirtualBox wins, for such features you need VMware Workstation.
Benchmark: VirtualBox vs VMware
by devarni on 10 März 2009, under Benchmark
Benchmark VirtualBox 2.1.4 vs VMware Workstation 6.5.1
Host: Ubuntu64, 4GB RAM, Core2Duo E6600, Samsung HD502IJ
Gast: Windows XP Home, 1GB RAM, 8GB virtual disk
Benchmark Software: SiSoft Sandra Light, HD Tune
Ein kurzer Benchmark der beiden VMs
| VirtualBox | VMware Workstation | |
| HDTune | ||
| Min (MB/s) | 26 | 5,7 |
| Max (MB/s) | 250 | 803 |
| Average (MB/s) | 177 | 392 |
| Access time (ms) | 0,4 | 0,2 |
| Burst rate (MB/s) | 129 | 488 |
| CPU Usage | 56% | 17% |
Sisoft Sandra |
||
| Dhrystone ALU (GIPS) | 22,70 | 7,35 (*7,34) |
| Whetstone iSSE3 (GFlops) | 18,64 | 6,26 (*5,92) |
| Multimedia: Integer (MPixel/s) | 77,21 | 15,76 (*16,90) |
| Multimedia: Floating Point (MPixel/s) | 45,77 | 10,04 (*10,19) |
| Multimedia: Double (MPixel/s) | 23,96 | 5,14 (*4,28) |
| Physical Drives (MB/s) | 109 | 357 |
| Combined Performance Index | 671 | 802 |
*) Dual CPU Mode
Resumee
VirtualBox zeigt die bessere Rechenleistung, was sich besonders bei Desktopanwendungen und multimedialastigen Operationen positiv auswirkt.
VMware zeigt die bessere Festplattenperformance, was sich besonders bei Servern positiv bemerkbar macht. Interessant: der Dual CPU Mode in Vmware hat keinen Vorteil zum Single CPU mode).
Man kann sicherlich sagen: VirtualBox für Desktopanwendungen, Vmware für Server, wobei Vmware in der Gesamtperformance der Sieger ist.
English
Deutsch