BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Search Results for: auxiliary

Web APIs: Possible paths for the AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on September 19, 2024

In our last blog post, we discussed one of the major decision points we’re facing as we work on what we hope will be the first new AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload: choosing a Web AI framework. In today’s blog, we’re discussing another significant decision that we need to make for the future workload’s development path: choosing a web API.

Many of you are familiar with the concept of an application programming interface (API). Simply put, APIs implement sets of software rules, tools, and/or protocols that serve as intermediaries that make it possible for different computer programs or components to communicate with each other. APIs simplify many development tasks for programmers and provide standardized ways for applications to share data, functions, and system resources.

Web APIs fulfill the intermediary role of an API—through HTTP-based communication—for web servers (on the server side) or web browsers (on the client side). Client-side web APIs make it possible for browser-based applications to expand browser functionality. They execute the kinds of JavaScript, HTML5, and WebAssembly (Wasm) workloads—among other examples—that support the wide variety of browser extensions many of us use every day. WebXPRT uses those types of browser-based workloads to evaluate system performance. To lay a solid foundation for the first future browser-based AI workload, we need to choose a web API that will be compatible with WebXPRT and the Web AI framework and AI inference workload(s) we ultimately choose.

Currently, there are three main web API paths for running AI inference in a web browser: Web Neural Network (WebNN), Wasm, and WebGPU. These three web technologies are in various stages of development and standardization. Each has different levels of support within the major browsers. Here are basic overviews of each of the three options, as well as a few of our thoughts on the benefits and limitations that each may bring to the table for a future WebXPRT AI workload:

  • WebNN is a JavaScript API that enables developers to directly execute machine learning (ML) tasks on neural networks within web-based applications. WebNN makes it easier to integrate ML models into web apps, and it allows web apps to leverage the power of neural processing units (NPUs). WebNN has a lot going for it. It’s hardware-agnostic and works with various ML frameworks. It’s likely to be a major player in future browser-based inference applications. However, as a web standard, WebNN is still in the development stage and is only available in developer previews for Chromium-based browsers. Full default WebNN support could take a year or more.
  • Wasm is a binary instruction format that works across all modern browsers. Wasm provides a sandboxed environment that operates at near-native speeds and takes advantage of common hardware specs across platforms. Wasm’s capabilities offer web developers a great deal of flexibility for running complex client applications in the browser. Simply put, Wasm can help developers adapt their existing code for additional platforms and browser-based applications without requiring extensive code rewrites. Wasm’s flexibility and cross-platform compatibility is one of the reasons that we’ve already made use of Wasm in two existing WebXPRT 4 workloads that feature AI tasks: Organize Album using AI, and Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan. Wasm can also work together with other web APIs, such as WebGPU.
  • WebGPU enables web-based applications to directly access the graphics rendering and computational capabilities of a system’s GPU. The parallel computational abilities of GPUs make them especially well-suited to efficiently handle some of the demands of AI inference workloads, including image-based GenAI workloads or large language models. Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge currently support WebGPU, and it’s available in Safari through a tech preview.

Right now, we don’t think that WebNN will be fully out of the development phase in time to serve as our go-to web API for a new WebXPRT AI workload. Wasm and/or WebGPU appear to our best options for now. When WebNN is fully baked and available in mainstream browsers, it’s possible that we could port any existing Wasm- or WebGPU-based WebXPRT AI workloads to WebNN, which may open the possibility of cross-platform browser-based NPU performance comparisons.

All that said and as we mentioned in our previous post about Web AI frameworks, we have not made any final decisions about a web API or any aspect of the future workload. We’re still in the early stages of this project. We want your input.

If this discussion has sparked web AI ideas that you think would benefit the process, or if you have feedback you’d like to share, please feel free to contact us!

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome, Chromium, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, Future of performance evaluation, GenAI, Google, Google Chrome, GPU, HTML5, inference, JavaScript, large language models, Machine learning, Microsoft, Microsoft Edge, NPU, Performance benchmarking, Wasm, Web AI, web API, WebAssembly, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Web AI frameworks: Possible paths for the AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on September 5, 2024

A few months ago, we announced that we’re moving forward with the development of a new auxiliary WebXPRT 4 workload focused on local, browser-side AI technology. Local AI has many potential benefits, and it now seems safe to say that it will be a common fixture of everyday life for many people in the future. As the growth of browser-based inference technology picks up steam, our goal is to equip WebXPRT 4 users with the ability to quickly and reliably evaluate how well devices can handle substantial local inference tasks in the browser.

To reach our goal, we’ll need to make many well-researched and carefully considered decisions along the development path. Throughout the decision-making process, we’ll be balancing our commitment to core XPRT values, such as ease of use and widespread compatibility, with the practical realities of working with rapidly changing emergent technologies. In today’s blog, we’re discussing one of the first decision points that we face—choosing a Web AI framework.

AI frameworks are suites of tools and libraries that serve as building blocks for developers to create new AI-based models and apps or integrate existing AI functions in custom ways. AI frameworks can be commercial, such as OpenAI, or open source, such as Hugging Face, PyTorch, and TensorFlow. Because the XPRTs are available at no cost for users and we publish our source code, open-source frameworks are the right choice for WebXPRT.

Because the new workload will focus on locally powered, browser-based inference tasks, we also need to choose an AI framework that has browser integration capabilities and does not rely on server-side computing. These types of frameworks—called Web AI—use JavaScript (JS) APIs and other web technologies, such as WebAssembly and WebGPU, to run machine learning (ML) tasks on a device’s CPU, GPU, or NPU.

Several emerging Web AI frameworks may provide the compatibility and functionality we need for the future WebXPRT workload. Here are a few that we’re currently researching:

  • ONNX Runtime Web: Microsoft and other partners developed the Open Neural Network Exchange (ONNX) as an open standard for ML models. With available tools, users can convert models from several AI frameworks to ONNX, which can then be used by ONNX Runtime Web. ONNX Runtime Web allows developers to leverage the broad compatibility of ONNX-formatted ML models—including pre-trained vision, language, and GenAI models—in their web applications.
  • Transformers.js: Transformers.js, which uses ONNX Runtime Web, is a JS library that allows users to run AI models from the browser and offline. Transformers.js supports language, computer vision, and audio ML models, among others.
  • MediaPipe: Google developed MediaPipe as a way for developers to adapt TensorFlow-based models for use across many platforms in real-time on-device inference applications such as face detection and gesture recognition. MediaPipe is particularly useful for inference work in images, videos, and live streaming.
  • TensorFlow.js: TensorFlow has been around for a long time, and the TensorFlow ecosystem provides users with a broad variety of models and datasets. TensorFlow is an end-to-end ML solution—training to inference—but with available pre-trained models, developers can focus on inference. TensorFlow.js is an open-source JS library that helps developers integrate TensorFlow with web apps.

We have not made final decisions about a Web AI framework or any aspect of the future workload. We’re still in the research, discussion, and experimentation stages of development, but we want to be transparent with our readers about where we are in the process. In future blog posts, we’ll discuss some of the other major decision points in play.

Most of all, we invite you to join us in these discussions, make recommendations, and give us any other feedback or suggestions you may have, so please feel free to share your thoughts!

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, computer vision, Cross-platform benchmarks, face detection, Future of performance evaluation, Google, GPU, image classification, inference, JavaScript, Machine learning, MediaPipe, Microsoft, NPU, on-device AI, ONNX Runtime Web, Open Source, OpenAI, Performance benchmarking, PyTorch, TensorFlow, Transformers.js, Video, Web AI, Web-based testing, WebAssembly, WebGPU, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The role of potential WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workloads

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on June 22, 2023

As we mentioned in our most recent blog post, we’re seeking suggestions for ways to improve WebXPRT 4. We’re open to the prospect of adding both non-workload features and new auxiliary tests, e.g., a battery life or WebGPU-based graphics test scenario.

To prevent any confusion among WebXPRT 4 testers, we want to reiterate that any auxiliary workloads we might add will not affect existing WebXPRT 4 subtest or overall scores in any way. Auxiliary tests would be experimental or targeted workloads that run separately from the main test and produce their own scores. Current and future WebXPRT 4 results will be comparable to one another, so users who’ve already built a database of WebXPRT 4 scores will not have to retest their devices. Any new tests will be add-ons that allow us to continue expanding the rapidly growing body of published WebXPRT 4 test results while making the benchmark even more valuable to users overall.

If you have any thoughts about potential browser performance workloads, or any specific web technologies that you’d like to test, please let us know.

Justin

Posted in battery life, Benchmarking, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, results, WebGPU, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , |

Speaking of potential future WebXPRT workloads

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on October 31, 2024

In recent blog posts, we’ve discussed several types of potential future WebXPRT workloads—from an auxiliary AI-focused workload to a WebXPRT battery life test—and many of the factors that we would need to consider when developing those workloads. In today’s post, we’re discussing other types of workloads that we may consider for future WebXPRT versions. We’re also inviting you to send us your WebXPRT workload ideas!

Currently, the most promising web technology for future WebXPRT workloads is WebAssembly (Wasm). Wasm is a binary instruction format that works across all modern browsers, provides a sandboxed environment that operates at native speeds, and takes advantage of common hardware specs across platforms. Wasm’s capabilities offer web developers significant flexibility in running complex client applications within the browser.

We first made use of Wasm in WebXPRT 4’s Organize Album and Encrypt Notes workloads, but Wasm has the potential to support many more types of test scenarios. Here are just a few of the use-case categories that Wasm supports:

  • Gaming
  • Image and video editing
  • Video augmentation
  • CAD applications
  • Interactive learning portals
  • Language translation

Those categories and the possibilities they open for additional workloads are exciting! When thinking through possible new workload scenarios, it’s important to remember that workload proposals need to fit within a set of basic guidelines that uphold WebXPRT’s strengths as a benchmark. You can read about those guidelines in more detail in this blog post, but in short, new workloads ideally should

  • be relevant to real-life scenarios
  • have cross-platform support
  • clearly differentiate in their performance between different types of devices
  • produce consistent and easily replicated results

After testing with WebXPRT or reviewing the list of use cases that Wasm supports, have you considered a new workload or test scenario that you would like to see? If so, please let us know! Your ideas could end up playing a role in shaping the next version of WebXPRT!

Justin

Posted in battery life, benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, Future of performance evaluation, image processing, Performance benchmarking, WebAssembly, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, What makes a good benchmark? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , |

Thinking through a potential WebXPRT 4 battery life test

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on October 17, 2024

In recent blog posts, we’ve discussed some of the technical considerations we’re working through on our path toward a future AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload. While we’re especially excited about adding to WebXPRT 4’s AI performance evaluation capabilities, AI is not the only area of potential WebXPRT 4 expansion that we’ve thought about. We’re always open to hearing suggestions for ways we can improve WebXPRT 4, including any workload proposals you may have. Several users have asked about the possibility of a WebXPRT 4 battery life test, so today we’ll discuss what one might look like and some of the challenges we’d have to overcome to make it a reality.

Battery life tests fall into two primary categories: simple rundown tests and performance-weighted tests. Simple rundown tests measure battery life during extreme idle periods and loops of movie playbacks, etc., but do not reflect the wide-ranging mix of activities that characterize a typical day for most users. While they can be useful for performing very specific apples-to-apples comparisons, these tests don’t always give consumers an accurate estimate of the battery life they would experience in daily use.

In contrast, performance-weighted battery life tests, such as the one in CrXPRT 2, attempt to reflect real-world usage. The CrXPRT battery life test simulates common daily usage patterns for Chromebooks by including all the productivity workloads from the performance test, plus video playback, audio playback, and gaming scenarios. It also includes periods of wait/idle time. We believe this mixture of diverse activity and idle time better represents typical real-life behavior patterns. This makes the resulting estimated battery life much more helpful for consumers who are trying to match a device’s capabilities with their real-world needs.

From a technical standpoint, WebXPRT’s cross-platform nature presents us with several challenges that we did not face while developing the CrXPRT battery life test for ChromeOS. While the WebXPRT performance tests run in almost any browser, cross-browser differences and limitations in battery life reporting may restrict any future battery life test to a single browser or browser family. For instance, with the W3C Battery Status API, we can currently query battery status data from non-mobile Chromium-based browsers (e.g., Chrome, Edge, Opera, etc.), but not from Firefox or Safari. If a WebXPRT 4 battery life test supported only a single browser family, such as Chromium-based browsers, would you still be interested in using it? Please let us know.

A browser-based battery life workflow also presents other challenges that we do not face in native client applications, such as CrXPRT:

  • A browser-based battery life test may require the user to check the starting and ending battery capacities, with no way for the app to independently verify data accuracy.
  • The battery life test could require more babysitting in the event of network issues. We can catch network failures and try to handle them by reporting periods of network disconnection, but those interruptions could influence the battery life duration.
  • The factors above could make it difficult to achieve repeatability. One way to address that problem would be to run the test in a standardized lab environment with a steady internet connection, but a long list of standardized environmental requirements would make the battery life test less attractive and less accessible to many testers.

We’re not sharing these thoughts to make a WebXPRT 4 battery life test seem like an impossibility. Rather, we want to offer our perspective on what the test might look like and describe some of the challenges and considerations in play. If you have thoughts about battery life testing, or experience with battery life APIs in one or more of the major browsers, we’d love to hear from you!

Justin

Posted in AI, battery life, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome, Chromium, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, CrXPRT, Firefox, Future of performance evaluation, Performance benchmarking, Safari | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Putting together a good WebXPRT workload proposal

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on July 25, 2024

Recently, we announced that we’re moving forward with the development of a new AI-focused WebXPRT 4 workload. It will be an auxiliary workload, which means that it will run as a separate, optional test, and it won’t affect existing WebXPRT 4 tests or scores. Although the inspiration for this new workload came from internal WebXPRT discussions—and, let’s face it, from the huge increase in importance of AI—we wanted to remind you that we’re always open to hearing your WebXPRT workload ideas. If you’d like to submit proposals for new workloads, you don’t have to follow a formal process. Just contact us, and we’ll start the conversation.

If you do decide to send us a workload proposal, it will be helpful to know the types of parameters that we keep in mind. Below, we discuss some of the key questions we ask when we evaluate new WebXPRT workload ideas.

Will it be relevant and interesting to real users, lab testers, and tech reviewers?

When considering a WebXPRT workload proposal, the first two criteria are simple: is it relevant in real life, and are people interested in the workload? We created WebXPRT to evaluate device performance using web-based tasks that consumers are likely to experience daily, so real-life relevance has always been an essential requirement for us throughout development. There are many technologies, functions, and use cases that we could test in a web environment, but only some are relevant to common applications or usage patterns and are likely to draw the interest of real users, lab testers, and technical reviewers.

Will it have cross-platform support?

Currently, WebXPRT runs on almost any web browser and almost every device that supports a web browser. We would like to keep that level of cross-platform support when we introduce new workloads. However, technical differences in how various browsers execute tasks make it challenging to include certain scenarios without undermining our cross-platform ideal. When considering any workload proposal, one of the first questions we ask is, “Will it work on all the major browsers and operating systems?”

There are special exceptions to this guideline. For instance, we’re still in the early days of browser-based AI, and it’s unlikely that a new browser-based AI workload will run on every major browser. If it’s a particularly compelling idea, such as the AI scenario we’re currently working on, we may consider including it as an auxiliary test.

Will it differentiate performance between different types of devices?

XPRT benchmarks provide users with accurate measures for evaluating how well target systems or technologies perform specific tasks. With a broadly targeted benchmark like WebXPRT, if the workloads are so heavy that most devices can’t handle them or so light that most devices complete them without being taxed, the results will be of little use for helping buyers evaluating systems and making purchasing decisions, OEM labs, and the tech press.

That’s why, with any new WebXPRT workload, we look for a sweet spot with respect to how computationally demanding it will be. We want it to run on a wide range of devices—from low-end devices that are several years old to brand-new high-end devices, and everything in between. We also want users to see a wide range of workload scores and resulting overall scores that accurately reflect the experiences those systems deliver, so they can easily grasp the different performance capabilities of the devices under test.

Will results be consistent and easily replicated?

Finally, WebXPRT workloads should produce scores that consistently fall within an acceptable margin of error and are easily replicated with additional testing or comparable gear. Some web technologies are very sensitive to uncontrollable or unpredictable variables, such as internet speed. A workload that measures one of those technologies would be unlikely to produce results that are consistent and easily replicated.

We hope this post will be useful if you’re thinking about potential new workloads that you’d like to see in WebXPRT. If you have any general thoughts about browser performance testing or specific workload ideas that you’d like us to consider, please let us know.

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, What makes a good benchmark? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?
© Principled Technologies, Inc. 2024   |   Privacy policy

Cookie Notice: Our website uses cookies to deliver a smooth experience by storing logins and saving user information. By continuing to use our site, you agree with our usage of cookies as our privacy policy outlines.

x