BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: battery life

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

XPRT mentions in the tech press

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on April 4, 2024

One of the ways we monitor the effectiveness of the XPRT family of benchmarks is to regularly track XPRT usage and reach in the global tech press. Many tech journalists invest a lot of time and effort into producing thorough device reviews, and relevant and reliable benchmarks such as the XPRTs often serve as indispensable parts of a reviewer’s toolkit. Trust is hard-earned and easily lost in the benchmarking community, so we’re happy when our benchmarks consistently achieve “go-to” status for a growing number of tech assessment professionals around the world.

Because some of our newer readers may be unaware of the wide variety of outlets that regularly use the XPRTs, we occasionally like to share an overview of recent XPRT-related tech press activity. For today’s blog, we want to give readers a sampling of the press mentions we’ve seen over the past few months.

Recent mentions include:

Each month, we send out a BenchmarkXPRT Development Community newsletter that contains the latest updates from the XPRT world and provides a summary of the previous month’s XPRT-related activity, including new mentions of the XPRTs in the tech press. If you don’t currently receive the monthly BenchmarkXPRT newsletter but would like to join the mailing list, please let us know! There is no cost to join, and we will not publish or sell any of the contact information you provide. We will send only the monthly newsletter and occasional benchmark-related announcements, such as news about patches or new releases.

Justin

Posted in AnandTech, Apple, ASUS, battery life, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Chromebooks, CrXPRT, HP, Lenovo, Performance benchmarking, Performance of computing devices, Samsung, tech press, What makes a good benchmark? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Local AI and new frontiers for performance evaluation

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on December 19, 2023

Recently, we discussed some ways the PC market may evolve in 2024, and how new Windows on Arm PCs could present the XPRTs with many opportunities for benchmarking. In addition to a potential market shakeup from Arm-based PCs in the coming years, there’s a much broader emerging trend that could eventually revolutionize almost everything about the way we interact with our personal devices—the development of local, dedicated AI processing units for consumer-oriented tech.

AI already impacts daily life for many consumers through technologies such as such as predictive text, computer vision, adaptive workflow apps, voice recognition, smart assistants, and much more. Generative AI-based technologies are rapidly establishing a permanent, society-altering presence across a wide range of industries. Aside from some localized inference tasks that the CPU and/or GPU typically handle, the bulk of the heavy compute power that fuels those technologies has been in the cloud or in on-prem servers. Now, several major chipmakers are working to roll out their own versions of AI-optimized neural processing units (NPUs) that will enable local devices to take on a larger share of the AI load.

Examples of dedicated AI hardware in recently-released or upcoming consumer devices include Intel’s new Meteor Lake NPU, Apple’s Neural Engine for M-series SoCs, Qualcomm’s Hexagon NPU, and AMD’s XDNA 2 architecture. The potential benefits of localized, NPU-facilitated AI are straightforward. On-device AI could reduce power consumption and extend battery life by offloading those tasks from the CPUs. It could alleviate certain cloud-related privacy and security concerns. Without the delays inherent in cloud queries, localized AI could execute inference tasks that operate much closer to real time. NPU-powered devices could fine-tune applications around your habits and preferences, even while offline. You could pull and utilize relevant data from cloud-based datasets without pushing private data in return. Theoretically, your device could know a great deal about you and enhance many areas of your daily life without passing all that data to another party.

Will localized AI play out that way? Some tech companies envision a role for on-device AI that enhances the abilities of existing cloud-based subscription services without decoupling personal data. We’ll likely see a wide variety of capabilities and services on offer, with application-specific and SaaS-determined privacy options.

Regardless of the way on-device AI technology evolves in the coming years, it presents an exciting new frontier for benchmarking. All NPUs will not be created equal, and that’s something buyers will need to understand. Some vendors will optimize their hardware more for computer vision, or large language models, or AI-based graphics rendering, and so on. It won’t be enough for business and consumers to simply know that a new system has dedicated AI processing abilities. They’ll need to know if that system performs well while handling the types of AI-related tasks that they do every day.

Here at the XPRTs, we specialize in creating benchmarks that feature real-world scenarios that mirror the types of tasks that people do in their daily lives. That approach means that when people use XPRT scores to compare device performance, they’re using a metric that can help them make a buying decision that will benefit them every day. We look forward to exploring ways that we can bring XPRT benchmarking expertise to the world of on-device AI.

Do you have ideas for future localized AI workloads? Let us know!

Justin

Posted in AI, AMD, Apple, Arm, battery life, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Cloud, computer vision, Cross-platform benchmarks, Data privacy, Future of performance evaluation, graphics, Intel, large language models, Machine learning, Meteor Lake, NPU, on premises, on-device AI, PCs, Qualcomm, SaaS, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The evolving PC market brings new opportunities for WebXPRT

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on December 7, 2023

Here at the XPRTs, we have to spend time examining what’s next in the tech industry, because the XPRTs have to keep up with the pace of innovation. In our recent discussions about 2024, a major recurring topic has been the potential impact of Qualcomm’s upcoming line of SOCs designed for Windows on Arm PCs.

Now, Windows on Arm PCs are certainly not new. Since Windows RT launched on the Arm-based Microsoft Surface RT in 2012, various Windows on Arm devices have come and gone, but none of them—except for some Microsoft SQ-based Surface devices—have made much of a name for themselves in the consumer market.

The reasons for these struggles are straightforward. While Arm-based PCs have the potential to offer consumers the benefits of excellent battery life and “always-on” mobile communications, the platform has historically lagged Intel- and AMD-based PCs in performance. Windows on Arm devices have also faced the challenge of a lack of large-scale buy-in from app developers. So, despite the past involvement of device makers like ASUS, HP, Lenovo, and Microsoft, the major theme of the Windows on Arm story has been one of very limited market acceptance.

Next year, though, the theme of that story may change. If it does, WebXPRT 4 is well-positioned to play an important part.

At the recent Qualcomm Technology Summit, the company unveiled the new 4nm Snapdragon X Elite SOC, which includes an all-new 12-core Oryon CPU, an integrated Adreno GPU, and an integrated Hexagon NPU (neural processing unit) designed for AI-powered applications. Company officials presented performance numbers that showed the X Elite surpassing the performance of late-gen AMD, Apple, and Intel competitor platforms, all while using less power.

Those are massive claims, and of course the proof will come—or not—only when systems are available for test. (In the past, companies have made similar claims about Windows on Arm advantages, only to see those claims evaporate by the time production devices show up on store shelves.)

Will Snapdragon X Elite systems demonstrate unprecedented performance and battery life when they hit the market? How will the performance of those devices stack up to Intel’s Meteor Lake systems and Apple’s M3 offerings? We don’t yet know how these new devices may shake up the PC market, but we do know that it looks like 2024 will present us with many golden opportunities for benchmarking. Amid all the marketing buzz, buyers everywhere will want to know about potential trade-offs between price, power, and battery life. Tech reviewers will want to dive into the details and provide useful data points, but many traditional PC benchmarks simply won’t work with Windows on ARM systems. As a go-to, cross-platform favorite of many OEMs—that runs on just about anything with a browser—WebXPRT 4 is in a perfect position to provide reviewers and consumers with relevant performance comparison data.

It’s quite possible that 2024 may be the biggest year for WebXPRT yet!

Justin

Posted in AI, AMD, Apple, Arm, ASUS, battery life, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Future of performance evaluation, Intel, Laptops, M3, Meteor Lake, PCs, Performance benchmarking, Qualcomm, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

A note about CrXPRT 2

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on August 31, 2023

Recent visitors to CrXPRT.com may have seen a notice that encourages visitors to use WebXPRT 4 instead of CrXPRT 2 for performance testing on high-end Chromebooks. The notice reads as follows:

NOTE: Chromebook technology has progressed rapidly since we released CrXPRT 2, and we’ve received reports that some CrXPRT 2 workloads may not stress top-bin Chromebook processors enough to give the necessary accuracy for users to compare their performance. So, for the latest test to compare the performance of high-end Chromebooks, we recommend using WebXPRT 4.

We made this recommendation because of the evident limitations of the CrXPRT 2 performance workloads when testing newer high-end hardware. CrXPRT 2 itself is not that old (2020), but when we created the CrXPRT 2 performance workloads, we started with a core framework of CrXPRT 2015 performance workloads. In a similar way, we built the CrXPRT 2015 workloads on a foundation of WebXPRT 2015 workloads. At the time, the harness and workload structures we used to ensure WebXPRT 2015’s cross-browser capabilities provided an excellent foundation that we could adapt for our new ChromeOS benchmark. Consequently, CrXPRT 2 is a close developmental descendant of WebXPRT 2015. Some of the legacy WebXPRT 2015/CrXPRT 2 workloads do not stress current high-end processors—a limitation that prevents effective performance testing differentiation—nor do they engage the latest web technologies.

In the past, the Chromebook market skewed heavily toward low-cost devices with down-bin, inexpensive processors, making this limitation less of an issue. Now, however, more Chromebooks offer top-bin processors on par with traditional laptops and workstations. Because of the limitations of the CrXPRT 2 workloads, we now recommend WebXPRT 4 for both cross-browser and ChromeOS performance testing on the latest high-end Chromebooks. WebXPRT 4 includes updated test content, newer JavaScript tools and libraries, modern WebAssembly workloads, and additional Web Workers tasks that cover a wide range of performance requirements.

While CrXPRT 2 continues to function as a capable performance and battery life comparison test for many ChromeOS devices, WebXPRT 4 is a more appropriate tool to use with new high-end devices. If you haven’t yet used WebXPRT 4 for Chromebook comparison testing, we encourage you to give it a try!

If you have any questions or concerns about CrXPRT 2 or WebXPRT 4, please don’t hesitate to ask!

Justin

Posted in battery life, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, browser performance, Chrome OS, Chromebooks, CrXPRT, Google Chrome, History of benchmarking, HTML5, JavaScript, Laptops, Performance benchmarking, WebAssembly, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2015, WebXPRT 4 | 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