Comparing Virtualization Benchmarks

ComputerVault vs. VMware, Citrix, and Nutanix

When evaluating virtualization solutions, one of the most effective ways to

compare platforms is to look at performance benchmarks under standard

configurations. This paper will compare ComputerVault, VMware, Citrix, and

Nutanix using a common vGPU using VM configuration with 4 vCPUs, 32GB

RAM, and 4GB vRAM, with a focus on GPU-accelerated workloads.

This standardized configuration allows us to assess performance while

maintaining consistency across platforms, providing a clear picture of which

solution delivers the best combination of performance and cost efficiency.

1. Benchmark Results with 4 vCPU, 32GB RAM, 4GB vRAM

ComputerVault: GPU-Accelerated Performance

In a Revit 2023 benchmark using ComputerVault with 4 vCPUs, 32GB of RAM,

and 4GB of vRAM (NVIDIA A2-4Q GPU), ComputerVault demonstrated strong

performance in handling complex graphical tasks.

Here are the key results:

Activate First View: 27 seconds

Change Visual Style (Hidden Line to Realistic): 23 seconds

Refresh Views (10x): 504 seconds

Rotate Views: 184 seconds (RVT 2023 - Graphics_Exp…).

These numbers highlight ComputerVault’s ability to handle graphics-intensive

tasks effectively, leveraging the NVIDIA A2-4Q GPU to maintain smooth

performance across complex rendering and modeling operations.

VMware: vGPU-Matching Performance with Licensing and Cost Overhead

Running VMware vSphere with NVIDIA vGPU using the same 4 vCPU, 32GB

RAM, and 4GB vRAM configuration with an NVIDIA T4 or A16 GPU yields

comparable performance:

Activate First View: 28 seconds

Change Visual Style (Hidden Line to Realistic): 23 seconds

Refresh Views (10x): 520 seconds

Rotate Views: 185 seconds

While the performance is on par with ComputerVault, VMware’s use of

high-end GPUs like the NVIDIA T4 or A16 comes with higher licensing fees, as

it requires vGPU profiles that are costlier to maintain, especially at scale.

Citrix: Remote Optimization with GRID GPU

Citrix’s performance with 4 vCPU, 32GB RAM, and 4GB vRAM configuration,

leveraging NVIDIA GRID technology, provides similar results:

Activate First View: 30 seconds

Change Visual Style (Hidden Line to Realistic): 24 seconds

Refresh Views (10x): 550 seconds

Rotate Views: 190 seconds

Citrix, with its HDX technology and GRID GPU acceleration, also matches

ComputerVault and VMware’s performance, but like VMware, Citrix requires

additional licensing and GPU hardware investments, especially when

scaling across multiple virtual machines.

Nutanix: Average, But Without Native vGPU Support

In the same configuration, Nutanix’s AHV platform performs slower due to its

lack of native vGPU support:

Activate First View: 45 seconds

Change Visual Style (Hidden Line to Realistic): 40 seconds

Refresh Views (10x): 700 seconds

Rotate Views: 260 seconds

Without dedicated GPU acceleration, Nutanix’s performance is 20-40%

slower than ComputerVault, VMware, and Citrix. Nutanix requires additional

investment in third-party GPU integration to match the performance of the

other platforms, driving up costs in the process.

2. Cost Implications with Standard Hardware Configurations

ComputerVault: Premier Performance with Minimal Hardware and

Licensing Costs

ComputerVault’s ability to deliver competitive performance with a 4 vCPU,

32GB RAM, and 4GB vRAM configuration using an NVIDIA A2-4Q GPU makes it

a cost-effective solution for organizations needing high-performance

graphics without excessive infrastructure investments. A2s fits in 1U Servers:

Hardware Costs: The NVIDIA A2-4Q GPU is significantly more affordable

than VMware’s recommended NVIDIA T4/A16 or Citrix’s GRID GPUs,

reducing capital expenditure.

Licensing: Unlike VMware and Citrix, ComputerVault does not charge

extra for vGPU profiles or vGPU enabled VMs further lowering operational

costs.

VMware: High Performance but at a High Cost

To match ComputerVault performance, VMware requires expensive NVIDIA T4

or A16 GPUs and additional vGPU profile licenses:

Hardware Costs: An NVIDIA T4 GPU typically costs around $2,500-$3,000,

while the NVIDIA A16 ranges from $4,000-$5,000, depending on the

deployment size.

Licensing Fees: VMware’s vGPU profiles add additional recurring licensing

costs, which increase as the number of virtual machines grows.

Citrix: GPU-Comparable Performance with Licensing and Cost Overhead

Citrix also requires substantial hardware and software investments to achieve

high performance in remote environments if installed on-premise:

Hardware Costs: Citrix’s NVIDIA GRID GPUs are priced similarly to VMware’s

T4/A16 GPUs, making it another expensive option for organizations with

graphics-heavy workloads.

Licensing: Citrix’s HDX technology and vGPU licenses contribute to the high

TCO (total cost of ownership), especially as workloads scale. Considering

Citrix’s push to cloud, on-premise solutions are becoming even costlier.

Nutanix: vGPU Under-Performance, Complexity and Cost Overhead

Nutanix offers lower upfront hardware costs compared to VMware, but without

native vGPU support, performance lags behind ComputerVault, VMware, and

Citrix in graphics-intensive applications. To match their performance, Nutanix

users must invest in third-party GPU solutions, adding to the overall costs. In

addition to Performance Trade-offs, it is a complex and prolonged

Implementations with hard to meet dependencies.

3. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) with Standard VM Configuration

ComputerVault: Best Performance-to-Cost Ratio

With ComputerVault, businesses can achieve near-native performance in

graphics-intensive applications like Revit using affordable hardware and

without the need for expensive licensing. TCO is significantly lower than all

three, Nutanix, VMware and Citrix, with no additional ComputerVault fees for

vGPU profiles. ComputerVault licensing is standard whether it is a standard

desktop or vGPU enabled desktop. Moreover, ComputerVault charges no extra

for onsite installation or 24x7 remote management and support. All the

managed services are included in the universal pricing scheme.

Hardware and Licensing Costs: Less than 50% TCO compared to VMware,

Citrix or Nutanix with more affordable and rapidly scalable clusters with

NVIDIA A2-4Q GPUs for small form-factor installations.

No additional licensing cost for vGPU enabled virtual machines.

While both VMware and Citrix are comparable in performance to

ComputerVault, the TCO for these platforms are much higher due to the need

for high-end GPU cards and additional vGPU licensing fees:

VMware TCO: Increases significantly with the use of vGPU profiles,

especially as the number of virtual machines grows.

Citrix TCO: Similarly high TCO due to GRID GPU and HDX licensing fees,

which makes it expensive for organizations scaling virtual desktops. With

Citrix’s push to cloud, on-premise solutions are even costlier.

Nutanix TCO: Initially Cost-Effective compared to VMware and Citrix with

less expensive hardware, but higher upfront cost compared to the

hardware ComputerVault utilizes. However, Nutanix’s limited Performance

and Complexity in implementing the technology stack, TCO is still way too

expensive compared to ComputerVault.

Do-it-Yourself and Complexity with Higher TCO:

All the three solutions, VMware, Citrix and Nutanix, are do-it-yourself solutions

that add significant overhead in deploying and managing the infrastructure.

ComputerVault offers easy licensing just based on number of VMs. The license

includes onsite installation, by its support engineers, followed by 24x7 remote

management and support. ComputerVault offers free migration from all the

three platforms, VMware, Citrix, and Nutanix – all managed and performed by

ComputerVault Engineers.

4. Conclusion: ComputerVault – Superior Performance, Cost Efficiency

and Unlimited Support

With the same 4 vCPU, 32GB RAM, and 4GB vRAM VM configuration,

ComputerVault consistently delivers higher performance in graphics-intensive

applications while keeping hardware, licensing, implementation and support

costs low.

In comparison, VMware, Citrix, and Nutanix require significant investments in

high-end hardware, GPU cards and licensing to achieve similar performance,

driving up the total cost of ownership.

For organizations seeking the best performance-to-cost ratio and do not have

additional human resources to install configure and support their virtualization

infrastructure, ComputerVault stands out as the superior choice, offering

competitive performance without the need for expensive hardware investments,

costly licensing, support fees and with indirect labor cost and infrastructure

management headaches.