BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Author Archives: Justin Greene

Digging deeper

From time to time, we like to revisit the fundamentals of the XPRT approach to benchmark development. Today, we’re discussing the need for testers and benchmark developers to consider the multiple factors that influence benchmark results. For every device we test, all of its hardware and software components have the potential to affect performance, and changing the configuration of those components can significantly change results.

For example, we frequently see significant performance differences between different browsers on the same system. In our recent recap of the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight’s first year, we highlighted an example of how testing the same device with the same benchmark can produce different results, depending on the software stack under test. In that instance, the Alienware Steam Machine entry included a WebXPRT 2015 score for each of the two browsers that consumers were likely to use. The first score (356) represented the SteamOS browser app in the SteamOS environment, and the second (441) represented the Iceweasel browser (a Firefox variant) in the Linux-based desktop environment. Including only the first score would have given readers an incomplete picture of the Steam Machine’s web-browsing capabilities, so we thought it was important to include both.

We also see performance differences between different versions of the same browser, a fact especially relevant to those who use frequently updated browsers, such as Chrome. Even benchmarks that measure the same general area of performance, for example, web browsing, are usually testing very different things.

OS updates can also have an impact on performance. Consumers might base a purchase on performance or battery life scores and end up with a device that behaves much differently when updated to a new version of Android or iOS, for example.

Other important factors in the software stack include pre-installed software, commonly referred to as bloatware, and the proliferation of apps that sap performance and battery life.

This is a much larger topic than we can cover in the blog. Let the examples we’ve mentioned remind you to think critically about, and dig deeper into, benchmark results. If we see published XPRT scores that differ significantly from our own results, our first question is always “What’s different between the two devices?” Most of the time, the answer becomes clear as we compare hardware and software from top to bottom.

Justin

Celebrating one year of the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight

It’s been just over a year since we launched the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight by featuring our first device, the Google Pixel C. Spotlight has since become one of the most popular items at BenchmarkXPRT.com, and we thought now would be a good time to recap the past year, offer more insight into the choices we make behind the scenes, and look at what’s ahead for Spotlight.

The goal of Spotlight is to provide PT-verified specs and test results that can help consumers make smart buying decisions. We try to include a wide variety of device types, vendors, software platforms, and price points in our inventory. The devices also tend to fall into one of two main groups: popular new devices generating a lot of interest and devices that have unique form factors or unusual features.

To date, we’ve featured 56 devices: 16 phones, 11 laptops, 10 two-in-ones, 9 tablets, 4 consoles, 3 all-in-ones, and 3 small-form-factor PCs. The operating systems these devices run include Android, ChromeOS, iOS, macOS, OS X, Windows, and an array of vendor-specific OS variants and skins.

As much as possible, we test using out-of-the-box (OOB) configurations. We want to present test results that reflect what everyday users will experience on day one. Depending on the vendor, the OOB approach can mean that some devices arrive bogged down with bloatware while others are relatively clean. We don’t attempt to “fix” anything in those situations; we simply test each device “as is” when it arrives.

If devices arrive with outdated OS versions (as is often the case with Chromebooks), we update to current versions before testing, because that’s the best reflection of what everyday users will experience. In the past, that approach would’ve been more complicated with Windows systems, but the Microsoft shift to “Windows as a service” ensures that most users receive significant OS updates automatically by default.

The OOB approach also means that the WebXPRT scores we publish reflect the performance of each device’s default browser, even if it’s possible to install a faster browser. Our goal isn’t to perform a browser shootout on each device, but to give an accurate snapshot of OOB performance. For instance, last week’s Alienware Steam Machine entry included two WebXPRT scores, a 356 on the SteamOS browser app and a 441 on Iceweasel 38.8.0 (a Firefox variant used in the device’s Linux-based desktop mode). That’s a significant difference, but the main question for us was which browser was more likely to be used in an OOB scenario. With the Steam Machine, the answer was truly “either one.” Many users will use the browser app in the SteamOS environment and many will take the few steps needed to access the desktop environment. In that case, even though one browser was significantly faster than the other, choosing to omit one score in favor of the other would have excluded results from an equally likely OOB environment.

We’re always looking for ways to improve Spotlight. We recently began including more photos for each device, including ones that highlight important form-factor elements and unusual features. Moving forward, we plan to expand Spotlight’s offerings to include automatic score comparisons, additional system information, and improved graphical elements. Most importantly, we’d like to hear your thoughts about Spotlight. What devices and device types would you like to see? Are there specs that would be helpful to you? What can we do to improve Spotlight? Let us know!

Justin

A new HDXPRT 2014 build is available

Last fall, we identified a way to run HDXPRT 2014, originally developed for Windows 8, on Windows 10. The method involved overwriting the HDXPRT CPU-Z files with newer versions and performing a few additional pre-test configuration steps. You can read more details about those steps here.

Today, we’re releasing a new build of HDXPRT 2014 (v1.2) that eliminates the need to overwrite the CPU-Z files. The new build is available for download at HDXPRT.com. Please note that the app package is 5.08 GB, so allow time and space for the download process.

We also updated the HDXPRT 2014 User Manual to reflect changes in pre-test system configuration and to include the settings we recommend for newer builds of Windows 10.

The changes in the new build do not affect results, so v1.2 scores are comparable to v1.1 scores on the same system.

The new build ran well during testing in our labs, but issues could emerge as Microsoft releases new Windows updates. If you have any questions about HDXPRT or encounter any issues during testing, we encourage you to let us know.

We look forward to seeing your test results!

Justin

BatteryXPRT 2014 gets an update

After Android 7 (Nougat) was released on select devices this past fall, we discovered an issue with BatteryXPRT on devices running Android 7 and above. The battery life tests were completing accurately and reliably, but the test was not producing a performance score.

The problem was a result of significant changes in the Android development environment. Android 7 restricted the flags used for different target architectures when linking native code components, and that caused issues while executing part of the Create Slideshow workload. We resolved the issue by changing the linked flags. Also, we migrated the BatteryXPRT code from the Eclipse and Android SDK development environments to the up-to-date Android Studio environment. This allowed us to rebuild the app in a way that maintains compatibility with the most recent versions of Android.

Today, we’re releasing a new build of BatteryXPRT 2014 (v104) at BatteryXPRT.com and the Google Play store. Scores from this build are comparable with previous BatteryXPRT scores, and if you’re testing with a version of BatteryXPRT that you downloaded from the Google Play store, you should receive the new build via an app update.

Click here to download the new BatteryXPRT installer (330 MB) directly from our site.

For users who have limited bandwidth or trouble accessing the Google Play store, downloading the APK files (26.7 MB total) may make installation easier.

Download the updated BatteryXPRT APK (2.8 MB) directly from our site.

Download the updated BatteryXPRT Tests APK (23.9 MB) directly from our site.

If you have any questions about the update or any other XPRT-related topic, feel free to contact us at BenchmarkXPRTSupport@principledtechnologies.com.

Justin

CrXPRT’s future

This week, we’re continuing our review of the XPRT portfolio by discussing the future of CrXPRT. CrXPRT, designed for use with Chrome OS, is a tool for evaluating the performance and battery life of Chromebooks as they handle everyday tasks. The app’s performance test, which measures Chromebook speed, produces an overall score and individual scores for each workload. The battery life test produces an estimated battery life and a separate performance score. CrXPRT is easy to install and use, and like BatteryXPRT, it evaluates battery life in half a workday.

We developed CrXPRT in response to the growing popularity of Chromebooks, especially in the education sector. The number of OEMs manufacturing Chromebooks has grown dramatically, along with the range of Chromebook price points and form factors. That growth shows no signs of slowing down, so CrXPRT is more relevant than ever as a tool for helping consumers make informed buying decisions.

As Chromebook market share continues to grow, however, it’s clear that significant changes to the Chrome OS environment are on the way. One big change is Google’s decision to bring Android apps, and the Google Play store itself, to Chrome OS. Another change is the plan to “begin the evolution away” from the Chrome apps platform and phase out Chrome app support on other platforms within the next two years.

There are also reports of a hybrid Android-Chrome OS operating system. Codenamed “Andromeda,” it would unite the Android and Chrome OS environments in a manner similar to the way Microsoft Continuum allows Windows 10 to run on a wide variety of device types. Details on Andromeda are few and far between, but it would obviously be a game changer.

The Google Play store rollout to select Chromebooks is already well underway. As for the other changes, it remains to be seen exactly when and how they will be implemented. The Chromium team did state that all types of Chrome apps will remain supported and maintained on Chrome OS for the foreseeable future.

For us, it’s important to maintain the ability to measure both performance and battery life on Chromebooks. The current version of CrXPRT does the job well, so we don’t see a need for a new version until the situation becomes more clear. In the meantime, we’ll be keeping an eye on Chrome-related news.

As always, we’re interested in your feedback. If you have any thoughts on CrXPRT 2015 or the future of Chromebook evaluation, let us know!

Justin

Reflecting on 2016

The beginning of a new year is a good time to look back on the previous 12 months and take stock of everything that happened. Here’s a quick recap of a very busy year:

In 2016, the XPRTs travelled quite a bit. Eric went to CES in Las Vegas, Mark attended MWC in Barcelona, and Bill flew out to IDF16 in Shenzhen.

We also sent a team to Seattle for the first XPRT Women Code-A-Thon, an event we’re very proud to have sponsored and co-hosted along with ChickTech, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the number of women in tech-related fields. The Code-a-thon also served as inspiration for an eight-part video series entitled Women Coding for Change. The series explains the motivation behind the Code-a-thon and profiles several of the participants. If you haven’t watched the videos, check them out. They’re well worth the time.

Speaking of videos, we also published one about Nebula Wolf, the mini-game workload produced through our first collaboration with the North Carolina State Senior Design Center. That experience was promising enough for us to partner with another student team this past fall, which resulted in a virtual reality app that we hope to share with the community in the near future.

Of course, we also continued work on our suite of benchmark tools and related resources. We released TouchXPRT 2016 to the public, published the Exploring TouchXPRT 2016 white paper, and released the TouchXPRT 2016 source code to community members.

In 2016, we unveiled the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight, a new way for device vendors and manufacturers to share verified test results with buyers around the world. We put 46 devices in the spotlight throughout the year and published Back-to-School, Black Friday, and Holiday device showcases.

In the last quarter of 2016, we celebrated our most widely-used benchmark, WebXPRT, passing the 100,000-run milestone. WebXPRT is still going strong and is as useful and relevant as ever!

Finally, we ended the year with the exciting news that we’re moving forward with efforts to develop a machine-learning performance evaluation tool. We look forward to engaging with the community in the coming year as we tackle this challenge!

As always, we’re grateful for everyone who’s helped to make the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community a strong, vibrant, and relevant resource for people all around the world. Here’s to a great 2017!

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?