Parallels 3D performance

OK, so I was buzzed when I heard that Parallels did 3D in version 3, so I got it the day it was released.

Using Quake 4 as the benchmark and just using in game FPS, I did some performance testing.

I guess because Parallels is so good running Windows XP - my MBP DuoCore 2 2.16Ghz with 2Gb ram it runs as fast as native (except disk access performance is slightly lower) I expected it to run almost as fast as native. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Test Spec
Both tests were run with the same video settings. 1080x786 on Medium quality settings. Test machine is Intel Duo Core 2 Mac Book Pro running @ 2.16Ghz, with 2Gb Ram. Video cars is a ATI Radeon X1600 with 128Mb Ram.
Parallels runs with 1500Mb Ram and 64Mb VRAM.


Parallels
In game fps goes from a peak of 33fps to a low of 11fps, with an average of around 18fps. This to say the least is disappointing. Still it's a version 1 product really. The fact that they even got it working is a brilliant achievement. Like I said before, I guess I was expecting more.

Native Mac OS X 10.4.9
Quake 4 runs pretty well natively, as you would expect. Peak fps is 70fps to a low of around 20fps, with an in game average around 35. Hardly stellar but acceptable none the less. Basically what I would expect running this card on this machine.

Conclusion
Obviously native is still the best. On my MBP, gaming really isn't an option in Parallels. Nobody should buy it on the basis of playing games. It is a great new feature, and Parallels should be congratulated for the effort, but still a way to go yet. Having said that version 3 is worth the upgrade and is recommended to any Mac user that must use Windows apps. Just not games - not yet anyway.