I don't want to discourage you here but I think you'll find DarkstaR is correct. The top VSTs of today are capable of sound as good as (or arguably better than due to flexibility) the Virus. That said, I have seen some folks comparing the sound of the Virus against VSTs in the wrong circumstances. For example, Zebra, Massive, Sylenth, etc will only take you so far (not very) with the presets. You need to invest time to get good with each synth and its particulars, or just buy some very high quality libraries. For example, compare out of box Massive sounds with these:
http://www.adamszabo.com/massive-soundset. He is one of the best sound designers around, he also has a Virus but has said he uses softsynths more. Howard Scarr, the guy who perhaps has some of the most notoriety of any Virus sound designer now works for u-He (Zebra/Diva creators) fulltime, to give you an idea of where things have gone as VSTs and CPUs have gotten better.
When some folks say hardware sounds better than VST, I wonder if they are listening on equal ground. For example, headphones direct in the Virus, compared to headphones into speaker jack into back of PC or similar. For example I use both PC (FLStudio) and Mac (Logic Pro), and have many of same VSTs installed on both and transfer patches between them. With headphones direct into the Mac, everything sounds richer, more detailed, more expressive and far more inspiring on the Mac audio port (converters maybe?) but I think that's because of the different signal path for the audio out. Same synths, same patch, same headphones etc... as far as I know the only difference is the signal path, there is something in the signal path on the relatively cheap speakers I have on the PC at the moment.
In the end, it does not matter because by the time in ends up rendered to a track, there is absolutely no discernable difference in audio quality. The same will be true of any hardware synth -- there have been many tests done to see if anyone could consistently distinguish hardware from software synths in a track and to my knowledge it's never been done. Even Moog recently acknowledged there is no difference in sound, and that the real value of buying their hardware was for inspiration (which I agree with and is fully understandable).
Anyway I don't want to perpetuate any sort of hardware vs software debate because I like them both (and the inspiration factor of hardware, the value for live play, and the sheer sexiness of the blinking lights etc of the Virus has never been in doubt!).
I did also want to address that you said you wanted to get from point A to B faster. If you're looking to avoid a DAW, then the Virus might help in that regard, but if you are heavily DAW-reliant I think you will find the Virus actually forces you to re-think your workflow, slowing you down and leaving you fiddling with things you didn't have to in the past.
If I turn out to be wrong, please do update us here
Good luck.