BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Battery life

Seeing the whole picture

In past posts, we’ve discussed how people tend to focus on hardware differences when comparing performance or battery life scores between systems, but software factors such as OS version, choice of browser, and background activity often influence benchmark results on multiple levels.

For example, AnandTech recently published an article explaining how a decision by Google Chrome developers to increase Web page rendering times may have introduced a tradeoff between performance and battery life. To increase performance, Chrome asks Windows to use 1ms interrupt timings instead of the default 15.6ms timing. Unlike other applications that wait for the default timing, Chrome ends up getting its work done more often.

The tradeoff for that increased performance is that waking up the OS more frequently can diminish the effectiveness of a system’s innate power-saving attributes, such as a tick-less kernel and timer coalescing in Windows 8, or efficiency innovations in a new chip architecture. In this case, because of the OS-level interactions between Chrome and Windows, a faster browser could end up having a greater impact on battery life than might initially be suspected.

The article discusses the limitations of their test in detail, specifically with regards to Chrome 36 not being able to natively support the same HiDPI resolution as the other browsers, but the point we’re drawing out here is that accurate testing involves taking all relevant factors into consideration. People are used to the idea that changing browsers may impact Web performance, but not so much is said about a browser’s impact on battery life.

Justin

Comment on this post in the forums

It makes a difference

Ars Technica reported this week that they tested the developer preview of Android L and saw a whopping 36 percent improvement in battery life! Google made improving battery life a priority, and it sounds like they are succeeding. I can’t wait to test Android L with BatteryXPRT.

This is a spectacular example of how a change in software can change benchmark results, but it’s hardly unique. I’ve written before about how background activity on a phone depressed my friend’s WebXPRT scores. AnandTech used both IE 11 and Chrome 30 to test the Surface Pro 2 with a variety of benchmarks, including WebXPRT, SunSpider, Octane, Browsermark, and others. Browser choice had a noticeable impact on results – about a 40 percent difference for WebXPRT and a 76 percent difference for SunSpider!

People are generally pretty aware that changing the hardware changes performance. However, sometimes they lose track of software differences. When you compare scores, it’s not always possible to keep all the variables the same, but it’s crucial to know what the differences are.

In other BenchmarkXPRT news, we’re making some final adjustments to HDXPRT 2014, and the general release is just around the corner.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Testing the waters

A couple of weeks ago, we talked about some of our ideas for a new XPRT designed for Google’s Chrome OS. We’ve been working with some of these ideas and, while we’re still in the experimental stage, things look promising so far.

As we mentioned in the earlier blog, we’re trying WebXPRT as a base for the performance part of the test. So far, the performance component is working well. In addition to modified WebXPRT tests, we’re also trying some things that are not part of the WebXPRT 2013 workload.

We’ve been able to get battery life, but it’s been challenging and we haven’t found a way to avoid using Chrome’s Developer Mode. Accessing Developer Mode in Chrome can be tricky and requires different steps for each hardware manufacturer. We’re hoping to find ways to make battery life testing easier.

I’ve been vague about the tests because they’re likely to change over the next few weeks. We’re experimenting with both browser-based and Native Client-based performance tasks. As they firm up, I’ll be able to share more information.

Challenges aside, we’re excited about this new benchmark, and committed to making it as effective as possible. We’d still love feedback on a name, so feel free to contact us at BenchmarkXPRTsupport@principledtechnologies.com with your ideas.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

BatteryXPRT 2014 for Android is here!

Today we formally released BatteryXPRT 2014 for Android. The BenchmarkXPRT Development Community has been using a community preview for several weeks and now that we’ve released the benchmark, anyone may freely use it.

Also, the BatteryXPRT 2014 for Android source will soon be available to the community. Remember that community members have access to the source, but it is not available to the general public.

Comment on this post in the forums

It’s show time!

Tomorrow is the big day for BatteryXPRT 2014 for Android. After months of development, it’s finally time to release it to the world. We’ve learned quite a bit throughout the process, and we expect BatteryXPRT to become a trusted tool for Android users around the world.

BatteryXPRT will be available for download at BatteryXPRT.com, or through the Google Play Store. It will be available to the public no later than 5:00 PM ET on Friday May 2.

The BatteryXPRT results page allows you to submit test results directly from the app. We hope you’ll use this feature to submit your test runs for publication in the database.

There’s a huge diversity of Android devices out there, so BatteryXPRT.com will link to a page of tips, tricks, and known issues that we compiled during development testing. As with any of the XPRTs, if you encounter any issues please let us know.

Along with the new app, we also invite you to check out the Exploring BatteryXPRT 2014 for Android white paper for a more in-depth discussion of how it all works.

It’s definitely BatteryXPRT’s time to shine, but don’t forget that the new and improved TouchXPRT is coming soon!

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

It’s all in the presentation

The comment period for BatteryXPRT CP2 ended on Monday. Now we are in the final sprint to release the benchmark.

The extensive testing we’ve been doing has meant that we’ve been staring at a lot of numbers. This has led us to make a change in how we present the results. As you would expect, the battery life when you’re running the test using Wi-Fi is different than when you’re running it using your cellular network. Although individual devices vary, the difference is in the vicinity of 10 percent, about the same as the difference between Airplane mode and using Wi-Fi.

BatteryXPRT has always captured a device’s Wi-Fi setting in its disclosure results, but had not included this information with the results. Because we found it so helpful to have the Wi-Fi setting alongside the results, we have changed the presentation of the results to recognize three modes: Airplane, Wi-Fi, and Cellular. We hope that this will avoid confusion as people are using BatteryXPRT.

Note that we have not changed the way the results are calculated. Results you generated during the preview are still valid. However, results from one mode should not be compared to results from another mode.

We’ve been talking a lot about BatteryXPRT, but TouchXPRT is also looking great! We’re looking forward to releasing both of them soon!

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?