Hyper-V vs VirtualBox: How much faster is Type-1 Hypervisor?

Type-1 hypervisors, such as Hyper-V, are considered to be faster than type-2 hypervisors (VirtualBox) since it runs closer to hardware. But how much faster are they? Let's do an experiment.

[rajeshSimpleton]

To add, if your host machine has multiple cores with hyperthreading, VirtualBox would only allow passing through the actual number of CPU cores to the Guest.
Hyper-V, on the other hand, allows pushing the vCPUs as is.
Learnt this the hard way.
In my case, I have a threadripper 1950X host.
With Virtualbox, I could only get a 16 vCPU guest.
But Hyper-V let me create a guest with 32 vCPUs.

[jwoya]

This is a neat comparison, thanks. It would be interesting to see Linux as well, since VirtualBox has good integration with it.

[sparkybearbomb]

you should run it with unattended mode
that way it is 0 user input

[clockworkpotato]

You are my star today. Exactly what I was looking for! Thank you!

[IllevensKO]

great video, I really thought it's gonna be twofold difference. I guess Virtualbox is really enough to get familiar with Linux for purposes of interacting with VPS's in the future.

[davinp]

My system has 16GB of memory and when I had VirtualBox open it would make my system run very slow, but not Hyper-V. I used to test Windows Insider Preview builds.

[TheForsaken]

In this experiement are you running them both off the same storage device or separate storage locations.? I have tried the something similar, but i used an internal hdd for both - the transfer rate of the storage is a huge limitation as far as speed of installation is conecerned.

[Jaroslav.lhotak]

Great video! Thanks for making it, very helpful

[suemeonfriday]

I am bit skeptical... as Virtual Box when its configured for a single processor with HyperV support actually performs better than when you give it multiple cores...and the Hypervisor allows it to burst up to 200%... my feeling is that Microsoft's Multiprocessor Kernel has a very serious bug... as its always been bad since NT4 and beyond. You have to change the settings in System Acceleration to change it to HyperV. So I am putting this in the general category of a bad test.

[noelconrad]

Not significant enough, regarding hyper-v architecture (type I hypervisor)

[jasont]

VirtualBox seems worthwhile, since it has USB passthrough and is only slightly slower.

[kdta]

The only downside of Hyper-V is that you don't get sound in Ubuntu. Such a pain to configure, mine sometimes works and most of the time doesn't.

[Inukipan]

Great video for good reference, thanks mate.

[pvisit]

Did you use HyperV server or HyperV on Windows 10 ? In the last case you are not running HyperV to the full. HyperV is very fast on server hardware compared to VBox. VBox is more flexibel for client type PC compared to server type clients.

[HendersonHarrisson]

Good content. Btw what are the configurations u've done in hyper V. I'm running Ubuntu installed using quick create in hyper V. and jus wanna know if there is any configs needed for better performance.

[FaithfulMinds]

I heard that Hyper-V is not a Type-1 hypervisor on Windows 10. But still a little faster than VBox.

[Hardcore_Remixer]

I must mention that if you have Hyper-V enabled it will drastically slow down any other virtual machine app you use.
Still VirtualBox is slow af :b

[ysink]

Noticeably faster, but not enough to make me ditch VMWare

[JohnnyMcMenamin]

I can't even install Windows 10 OUTSIDE of a VM in 7 minutes :(

[hennagan]

One thing Hyper-V cannot top VirtualBox despite the 30 to 32 second gap is free is always light years ahead in decision making.