Help me understand this performance result

Discussion in 'Parallels Desktop for Mac' started by arfung, Apr 9, 2006.

  1. arfung

    arfung

    Messages:
    15
    For kicks, I downloaded the common benchmarking program superpi:

    http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/125

    Some review sites run the program on its setting to calculate pi to 2 million digits 20 times.

    I did that several times in the Parallels VM (Beta 2) and the result (verified by wall clock) is consistently around 1m 12 seconds (I had a bunch of other stuff open, but it wasn't loading the processor at all). I'm running it on system 10.4.6, MacBook Pro, 2.0GHz.

    Now check out the results from this recent notebook.com review of the Dell laptop that uses the same Core Duo chip at 2.0G:

    http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2827

    Notebook Time
    Dell Inspiron e1505 (2.0GHz Core Duo) 1m 16s
    Acer TravelMate 8204WLMi (2.0GHz Core Duo) 1m 15s
    Sony VAIO FS680 (1.86 GHz Pentium M) 1m 53s
    Lenovo ThinkPad T60 (2.0GHz Core Duo) 1m 18s
    IBM ThinkPad Z60m (2.0 GHz Pentium M) 1m 36s
    Fujitsu LifeBook N3510 (1.73 GHz Pentium M) 1m 48s
    Dell Inspiron 6000D (1.6 GHz Pentium M) 1m 52s
    Dell Inspiron 600M (1.6 GHz Pentium M) 2m 10s
    HP Pavilion dv4000 (1.86 GHz Pentium M) 1m 39s
    HP DV4170us (Pentium M 1.73 GHz) 1m 53s
    Sony VAIO S380 (1.86 GHz Pentium M) 1m 45s


    So, how can the parallels virtual machine be 4 seconds faster than a real Windows XP box with the exact same chip, and way faster than any real Pentium-M?

    Have I entered the Steve Jobs reality distortion field?
     
  2. Neuron

    Neuron

    Messages:
    26
    The Parallels VM execute CPU instructions directly on the host CPU without having to do emulation, so it's not surprising that the performance would be comparable with native performance.
     

Share This Page