SiSoft Sandra 2004 Standard
In this first test, VMWare 4.0 offers the best performance altough VPC 2004 is very close on all tests, excepting the memory bandwidth tests: in floating-point memory test, VPC 2004 only achieves 891 MB/s, while VMWare gets a very respectable 2089MB/s -- in fact, very close to the host 1.92GHz system which obtained a mark of 2217 MB/s.

WinBench 99
The Winbench 99 Suite, a very popular benchmark, offers interesting results. This time, VMWare was faster than VirtualPC and it even scored the same High-End disk performance as the Host XP system. This leads to think of VMWare 4.0 as a highly optimized piece of software.
Results here are strange... In many tests, the virtual machines perform better than the host Windows XP system. This was checked three times. This may indicate 1) Winbench does not measure accurate performance under VMs 2) those tests (applications) perform better on WIndows 98SE than on the host WInXP system. If this is true, then we can, for example, use Premiere 4.2 in VPC or VMWare and obtain better performance than in the host XP OS. Altough, this seems pretty weird. Contact me if you've some hints on this.
The graphics tests show the host system performing much better than the virtual machines. VirtualPC, which emulates an old S3 Trio chip, is much slower than VMWare with it's own optimized SVGA driver, but even VMware can't compete with the speed of the host graphics subsystem. It's clear that VPC and VMware cannot handle graphical tasks with high performance, or at least, with performance comparable to the host system.
|
Host XP 2600+ |
VPC 2004 |
VMWare 4.0 |
Business Disk |
5880 |
3290 |
4170 |
High-End Disk |
15700 |
11600 |
15700 |
Business Graphics |
864 |
63,2 |
87,5 |
High-End Graphics |
1700 |
91,2 |
436 |

FPUmark 3.0/ CPUmark 99
The trend is the same here, where VMWare performs better than VPC2004, altough the CPUmark/FPUMark difference is minimal.

Conclusions
From the benchmark results i've obtained, it's perfectly valid to say that VMWare 4.0 performs better in general than Virtual PC 2004. Take in mind that this is under Windows 98SE. I don't know how VMWare and VPC perform with Linux or other guest OSes. I've FreeBSD 4.9 installed on my VPC2004-Trial and it runs very well, altough the X GUI is somewhat slow.
The area that VPC and VMWare must improve very much is in the graphics subsystem. The performance impact is big both in VMWare or VPC. The advantage of Virtual PC 2004 (and the reason that makes me like it so much) is the standard hardware emulated: S3 Trio, SoundBlaster 16 and a standard DEC network card. In the case of VMWare, the guest operating system needs a special video driver (SVGA II) to display more than an obsolete 640x480, 16 color display. If you want to run, e.g FreeBSD, you are with no luck.
Despite the lower performance, I'm using VPC for it's extremely ease of use, quick setup, and high compatibility. I've successfully ran without problems the following OSes: DR-DOS 5, DR-DOS 6, MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 3.1, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 95 , RedHat Linux, Suse Linux, FreeBSD 4.9, OpenBSD, OS/2 Warp 3 and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise. VirtualPC is a rock-solid piece of software.