Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Parallels Desktop for Mac Feature Suggestions' started by Nemensi, Apr 22, 2017.
knowledgeable article I really appreciate this
is someone going to respond to my question?
It was really helpful thank you!
You NEVER want to allocate all of the physical cores to a VM.
The way VMs provide work to the CPU depends on how many cores are allocate to it and how many cores are available on the host CPU. The VM cannot break apart the cores into smaller chunks and allocate those smaller chunks to the physical CPU.
What does this mean?
It means that all cores on the host CPU must be free before the guest VM can use the CPU. This creates a situation known as CPU wait time. It will drastically slow down the guest VM because it's constantly waiting for the host CPU to have all cores free. Parallels is doing you a favor by leaving 2 cores on the host machine free because 8 cores will become available a lot more than all 10.
I hope this explanation about virtualization helps.
I agree. I will not buy parallels until the perpetual license version is available with 8 CPU cores and 16GB RAM.
I would even pay a little more to get a perpetual license with more allocatable CPU cores and RAM.
Hello, perpetual license is only available in Standard Edition of Parallels Desktop. If you need more than 8GB vRAM you need to purchase Parallels Desktop Pro Edition subscription.
Subscriptions are stupid and I will never buy one. I need a perpetual license where I pay once and it doesn't expire. The perpetual license needs more cores and more RAM. Computing needs have evolved greatly since the highly-limited perpetual version was released with 4 cores and 8GB RAM.
The perpetual version needs 8 cores and 16GB RAM or you will not get a cent from me.
Entry level macs have gotten way more cores than when the 4 core/8GB RAM limit was set for the parallels perpetual license. The perpetual license now needs to be set to 8 cores/16 GB RAM. Otherwise, Crossover (by CodeWeavers) is a far better solution for the price than parallels.
Exactly. Everyone feels this way. You are not alone. Parallels needs to rid the standard version of these arbitrary RAM/CPU limits, or I will use CrossOver instead (and give Parallels none of my $$$).
I think there might be a need to reprice the Apple chip machines, after all, they don't have that many CPU cores unless you go with the m1u
We're at the point that VMs really do need access to more than 8 Gb by default.
I support this, but not because the "Old versions" had it, but rather because 4 CPU cores are not enough for some games which are CPU heavy, or even apps like GOG Galaxy...
The base version of Parallels is used mostly for games and app compatibility by home users, I understand that they have imposed limit of 4 Cores due to most CPU's having 8 cores, which is roughly 50% of the CPU cores and in theory "enough". However, the new M1/2 Pro/ Max CPU's have 10 or more cores, which means that we now no-longer receive ~50% of the cores, plus those are ARM cores which are struggling to translate.
I've read all the reviews about 5 cores behaving badly in Windows, which means that 6 cores should be good middle ground. I also checked lots of benchmarks for games which show that 6 cores is optimal for performance and provide in some cases up to +12% more FPS.
The "Pro's" that need the virtualization for work would still want to use at least 8 out of the 10 cores(compiling or using more heavy apps), thus I think that the 6 cores for the base version is optimal.
As for the RAM, 8 is fairly ok, but 10 gigs should be fine, Windows itself eats like 2.5 gigs and the games often require more to run properly, so on 16 Gig machine 10 or 12 gig limit sounds feasible.
The pros that have 32/ 64 or more ram would of course want to assign more to the VM, thus the "Pro" market would still not be affected.
The limit exists only to 'motivate' users to purchase a subscription. It was introduced with PD 12.1. All previous versions were not technically limited in terms of CPU and memory.
Nicely stated. Parallels's arbitrary CPU/RAM limits are getting long in the tooth. Fortunately VMWare is launching an alternative to Parallels without these limits and it looks really good. I think I'm going to switch to VMWare for this reason.
Well I agree to some degree for VMWare Fusion, however the GPU performance there is no where near the one in Parallels currently.
Thus, parallels can "afford" for now to keep those limits.
However, considering long-term investment, Fusion is way cheaper. Just two years of parallels pro subscription become way more expensive than Fusion.
Anyway, I also have Fusion 12 license, if they manage to get their GPU things done soon, i'll probably jump back.