Exactly the same as on real hardware (KMS_VL_ALL). VirtualBox is a Virtualizer (not an Emulator), it virtualizes hardware. The software is 100% the same as on real hardware.
Hardware is virtualized, only software can be emulated. VirtualBox is a Type 2 Virtualizer, it virtualizes all hardware except for the CPU. The CPU is presented to the VM almost 1:1 (except cores).
So QEMU running a ARM Windows or pearPC running macos for powerPC in a x86 machine what are supposed to be? They are obviously emulators that are emulating a different HARDWARE, all hardware, including the CPU. Nope, it virtualizes the CPU and emulates all other HW (except for pass-trough devices, typically USB, but also PCI devices, depending the virtualizator, but that's not virtualizzation either). Obviously any trick is used to speedup the emulation reusing as much as the host capabilities w/o translation overhead, but it's still emulation. The VGA you see is a non existent VMware o r VIrtualbox device, the chipset is from Intel even if the host machine is from AMD or Cyrix, and so on.
It passes most of the CPU through. VirtualBox is a Virtualizer (Type 2), not an Emulator! Even if it was, you cannot emulate hardware, only hardware features (big difference). All the different features of a CPU (Registers, FPU, etc.) have to be emulated in software, that's why it is so complicated and dead slow to provide a different architecture to the Guest, all needs to be translated back and forth between the actual Host CPU and the Guest. If it was that easy, all Virtualizers would support all architectures. Example of an actual Emulator is DOSBox. No need to install any DOS, all relevant DOS features are emulated. But it's not the actual DOS running in DOSBox, only Emulation that looks like DOS to the games. Disadvantage, you cannot install anything different like in a Virtualizer.
Obviously it is Emulators emulate (also) the CPU, which is not what VBOX/VMware/Paralles do Which is what QEMU do, (but QEMU if the host and guest architecture are the same, can be optionally also a virtualizzator) Matter of semantics, if you want a physical emulation, you need to wait for the StarTrek holodeck, but if "fooling the guest OS" in to thinking that it is managing a HW that doesn't exist (like a intel SATA controller in a AMD IDE only machine) emulating the HW is *EXACTLY* what both virtualizers and emulators do. Virtualization is a series of techniques aimed to use most of the *CPU* abilities, while intercepting others like RAM calls, and (very important in x86 architecture) translating the run levels so the guest OS can think that its kernel is running at ring 0 while actually is running at (normally unused) ring 1. Emulation needs to translate completely the CPU instructions (and if required the endianess) in another language, which is obviously That's the difference everything else is OBVIOUSLY emulated in both cases, with the exception of pass trough devices. If we want to be pedantic we can argue that special cases like the VMware VGA or the virt-io NIC/HDD controllers aren't really emulated (given there isn't a physical counterpart to be emulated) but that's matter of semantic, they are still non existent HW implemented by SW. Perhaps OS2, unlike Windows, used all ring levels, that made incredibly hard to have OS2 virtualized, Parallels was founded exactly because a big client asked to virtualize OS2 (something that at the time VMware wasn't able to do, let alone VBOX that was in its baby steps) Wrong example, the DOS when running inside windows, even 3.11 (or dos extenders) is virtualized since the 286 and the 386 releases. You'll never see a native DOS machine unless you boot it directly from a bootable Dos media (or reboot Win9x in dos mode) In two words emulators differs from Virtualizers (no matter if type 1 or 2) for just *ONE* thing, how they manage the CPU that the guest see. That's all.
I have Windows 11 (any Editions) by Disabled CPU, TPM and etc with script before I install Windows 11 on VM machine... I had tested on VMware 16 or 17 and also VirtualBox 7.0 too, So, I had no trouble... ATGPUD2003