The result was that the MacBook’s CPU and GPU weren’t taxed, and the battery draw was minimal compared to Parallels and Fusion. VirtualBox couldn’t run the 3D gaming portion of the test the test didn’t fail, but it just sat there with a blank window during the 3D portion. The only issue we ran into was with VirtualBox and the Balanced test. The system is a bit older than our Mac Pro, but its battery isn’t, having been replaced this summer and reporting a cycle count of only 21. The former runs a continuous loop of activities including Web browsing, word processing, video playback, and light 3D gaming, while the latter looks at just Web browsing and word processing.Īs we mentioned earlier in Hardware, Software, and Methodology, our battery life tests were performed on a 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro with a 2.3GHz i7 CPU. We tested both the “Balanced” and “Productivity” workflows. To see how Parallels 10 fares against VMware Fusion 7 and VirtualBox, we turned once again to Futuremark’s Powermark test, which emulates certain workflows until the battery is exhausted. But one area that both Parallels and VMware call out this year is battery life, with the former claiming an improvement of “up to 30 percent.” Our testing did reveal an improvement, but only by about 10 percent. ![]() As you may have read in our initial benchmark review of Parallels 10, there’s not a huge difference in performance between Parallels 9 and Parallels 10.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |