VMware View 5 outperforms Citrix XenDesktop

Principled Technologies has just released an interesting whitepaper comparing the performance of VMware View 5 with Citrix XenDesktop 5.5 — the doc can be found here. In this paper, View and XenDesktop are compared using LoginVSI, for both the light and medium workloads, and both network and CPU utilization data are presented.

The key benefit of this study is it compares the two VDI technologies in an apples-2-apples manner. Out of the box, View and XenDesktop deliver different levels of desktop image quality — with XenDesktop delivering a lower image quality by default. Accordingly, for a meaningful comparison between VDI technologies, it is critical to adjust the quality settings to ensure that both VDI solutions are delivering comparable quality. In this paper, Principled Technologies, provide data for both high quality imaging (increasing XenDesktop image quality to match View's default) and lossy quality (decreasing View image quality to match XenDesktop) benchmark runs. In both these usage scenarios, View is found to achieve lower resource utilization in the majority of runs! The only exception is runs with in which XenDesktop flash redirection is enabled — Principled Technologies have not configured View video as discussed in our prior blog postings (which, in many instances, is capable of bringing the bandwidth associated with server-rendered flash content close to redirected streams).

Accordingly, the main take-away from this study is that it is important for customers to determine what desktop imaging quality their particular usage scenario demands and to configure their VDI solutions appropriately, both in any bake-off performance testing and in their final VDI deployment. 

Finally, it is important to note that this study using 3rd party workload simulation tools, closely matches the findings that we presented at VMworld 2011 using VMware View Planner.


8 comments have been added so far

  1. Interesting, but what I find interesting is that this is a VMWare sponsered whitepaper. That takes all credibility out of it just as if Citrix sponsered one saying how great XenDesktop is.

  2. *Yawn*
    And this is relevant to Real-World VDI how???
    Last time I checked, the project methodology used for a VDI project was much more important than the technology used ……
    And btw., both protocols (PCoIP and HDX) are designed to make full use of the available bandwidth.
    So what do the bandwidth values even mean in this context?!?!
    Very disappointed by the VMware marketing department ….

  3. I would of like to see some remote capabilities testing in this paper. It was probably initially tested but didn’t help the client so was left out of the paper. It is great to save a little bandwidth on the lan. But if you Lan is designed well then the saving is negligible. The Wan is were we need the savings.

  4. An apples to apples comparision would be comparing VMware View 5 with Citrix VDI-in-a-Box. XenDesktop is not in the same league as View 5 and provides much more than VDI.
    You are a VDI vendor, you should compare against similar VDI-only technologies.
    Yes, PCoIP is better than what it used to be, big deal. This is a very biased white paper and doesn’t factor real world use cases because if I choose XenDesktop I wouldn’t be doing just VDI.

  5. Wow, this would have been news 3 years ago, Flash is dying now. I’d like to see real-world comparisions not lab controlled ones, with WAN options, different MTU sizes, encryption schems, etc.

  6. No WAN-based tests? In a full-bandwitdh network both going well, but I’d like to see them in real life, such as T1, T3, Sattelite….

  7. The Only way VMware will put Citrix behind them is to buy out Citrix….wait….that would make too much sense. Turn a one trick pony of a company into a ‘comprehensive’ virtualization company??????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *