BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Benchmark metrics

Our results database is your resource

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on June 16, 2022

Testers new to the XPRT benchmarks may not know about one of the free resources we offer. The XPRT results database currently holds more than 3,000 test results from over 120 sources, including major tech review publications around the world, OEMs, and independent testers. It offers a wealth of current and historical performance data across all the XPRT benchmarks and hundreds of devices.

We update the results database several times a week, adding selected results from our own internal lab testing, reliable tech media sources, and end-of-test user submissions. (After you run one of the XPRTs, you can choose to submit the results, but they don’t automatically appear in the database.) Before adding a result, we evaluate whether the score makes sense and is consistent with general expectations, which we can do only when we have sufficient system information details. For that reason, we ask testers to disclose as much hardware and software information as possible when publishing or submitting a result.

We encourage visitors to our site to explore the XPRT results database. There are three primary ways to do so. The first is by visiting the main BenchmarkXPRT results browser, which displays results entries for all of the XPRT benchmarks in chronological order (see the screenshot below). You can narrow the results by selecting a benchmark from the drop-down menu and can type values, such as vendor or the name of a tech publication, into the free-form filter field. For results we’ve produced in our lab, clicking “PT” in the Source column takes you to a page with additional disclosure information for the test system. For sources outside our lab, clicking the source name takes you to the original article or review that contains the result.

The second way to access our published results is by visiting the results page for an individual XPRT benchmark. Go the page of the benchmark that interests you, and look for the blue View Results button. Clicking it takes you to a page that displays results for only that benchmark. You can use the free-form filter on the page to filter those results, and can use the Benchmarks drop-down menu to jump to the other individual XPRT results pages.

The third way to view information in our results database is with the WebXPRT 4 results viewer. The viewer provides an information-packed, interactive environment in which users can explore data from the curated set of WebXPRT 4 results we’ve published on our site. To learn more about the viewer’s capabilities and features, check out this blog post from March.

We hope you’ll take some time to browse the information in our results database. We welcome your feedback about what you’d like to see in the future and suggestions for improvement. Our database contains the XPRT scores that we’ve gathered, but we publish them as a resource for you. Let us know what you think!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, Performance benchmarking, results, results submission, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , |

Helpful tips for WebXPRT 4 results submission

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on June 9, 2022

Back in March, we discussed the WebXPRT 4 results submission process and reminded readers that everyone who runs a WebXPRT 4 test is welcome to submit scores for us to consider for publication in the WebXPRT 4 results viewer. Unlike sites that publish every result that users submit, we publish only results that meet our evaluation criteria. Among other things, scores must be consistent with general expectations and must include enough detailed system information to help us assess whether individual scores represent valid test runs. Today, we offer a couple of tips to increase the likelihood that we will publish your WebXPRT 4 test results.

Tip 1: Specify your system’s processor

While testers usually include detailed information for the device, model number, operating system, and browser version fields, we receive many submissions with little to no information about the test system’s processor.

In the picture below, you can see an example of the level of detail that we require to consider a submission. We need the full processor name, including the manufacturer and model number (e.g., Intel Core i9-9980HK, AMD Ryzen 3 1300X, or Apple M1 Max). Note that we do not require the processor speed reported by the system.

Tip 2: Include a valid email address

It is also common for submissions to not include a valid email address. While we understand the privacy concerns related to submitting a personal or corporate email address, we need a valid address that we can use as a point of contact to confirm test-related information when necessary. We don’t use those addresses for any other purposes, such as selling them, sharing them with any third parties, or adding them to a mailing list.

We hope this information explains why we might not have published your results. We look forward to receiving your future score submissions. If you have any questions about the submission process, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in AMD, Apple, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Intel, Performance benchmarking, results, results submission, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , |

HDXPRT: See how your Windows PC handles real-world media tasks

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on May 26, 2022

Many of our blog readers first encountered the XPRTs when reading about a specific benchmark, such as WebXPRT, in a device review. Because these folks might be unfamiliar with our other benchmarks, we like to occasionally “reintroduce” individual XPRTs. This week, we invite you to get to know HDXPRT.

HDXPRT, which stands for High-Definition Experience & Performance Ratings Test, was the first benchmark published by the HDXPRT Development Community, which later became the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community. HDXPRT 4, the latest version, evaluates the performance of Windows 10 and Windows 11 devices while handling real-world media tasks such as photo editing, video conversion, and music editing. HDXPRT uses real commercial applications, such Photoshop and MediaEspresso, to complete its workloads. The benchmark then produces easy-to-understand results that are relevant to buyers shopping for new Windows systems.

The HDXPRT 4 setup process takes about 30 minutes on most systems. The length of the test can vary significantly depending on the speed of the system, but for most PCs that are less than a few years old, a full three-iteration test cycle takes under two hours.

HDXPRT is a useful tool for anyone who wants to evaluate the real-world, content-creation capabilities of a Windows PC. To see test scores from a variety of Windows devices, go to HDXPRT.com and click View Results.

Want to run HDXPRT?

Download HDXPRT from HDXPRT.com. The HDXPRT user manual provides information on minimum system requirements, as well as step-by-step instructions for configuring your system and kicking off a test.

Want to dig into the details?

The HDXPRT source code is available upon request. If you’d like to access the source code, please send your request to benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com. Build instructions are also available.

If you haven’t used HDXPRT before, give it a shot and let us know what you think!

Justin

Posted in Adobe Photoshop, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, HDXPRT, HDXPRT 4, HDXPRT capabilities, History of benchmarking, MediaEspresso, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, Windows, Windows 10, Windows 11 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

XPRTs in the press

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on May 12, 2022

Each month, we send a newsletter to members of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community. In the newsletter, we recap the latest updates from the XPRT world and provide a summary of the previous month’s XPRT-related activity, including uses or mentions of the XPRTs in the tech press. More people read the weekly XPRT blog than receive the monthly newsletter, so we realized that some blog readers may be unaware of the wide variety of tech outlets that regularly use or mention the XPRTs.

So for today’s blog, we want to give readers a sampling of the XPRT press usage we see on a weekly basis. Recent mentions include:

  • Tom’s Guide used HDXPRT 4 to compare the performance of the Geekom Mini IT8 and Dell OptiPlex 7090 Ultra small-form-factor PCs.
  • Intel used WebXPRT 4 test data in promotional material for their line of 12th Gen) Intel Core processors(Alder Lake). Hundreds of press outlets then republished the presentation.
  • AnandTech used WebXPRT 4 to evaluate the Cincoze DS-1300 Industrial PC.
  • ZDNet used CrXPRT 2 in a review titled The best Chromebooks for students: Student-proof laptops.
  • PCWorld used CrXPRT 2 to provide data for an article listing their top Chromebook recommendations.
  • TechPowerUp used WebXPRT 3 to compare the browser performance of Intel Core i9-12900KS processor-based systems and other Intel- and AMD processor-based systems.
  • Other outlets that have published articles, ads, or reviews mentioning the experts in the last few months include: Android Authority, ASUS, BenchLife, Gadgets 360, Good Gear Guide, Hardware.info, Hot Hardware, ITHardware (Poland), ITMedia (Japan), Itndaily (Russia), Mobile01.com (China), Notebookcheck, PCMag, ProClockers, Sohu.com (China), Tom’s Hardware, and Tweakers.

If you don’t currently receive the monthly BenchmarkXPRT newsletter, but would like to join the mailing list, please let us know! We will not publish or sell any of the contact information you provide, and will only send the monthly newsletter and occasional benchmark-related announcements such as patch notifications or new benchmark releases.

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Chromebooks, Cross-platform benchmarks, CrXPRT, HDXPRT, HDXPRT 4, Performance benchmarking, Performance of computing devices, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, webxprt 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

A great start for WebXPRT 4!

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on April 21, 2022

WebXPRT 4 has been available to testers since the end of December, and we’re excited to see that the benchmark is already gaining significant traction in the tech press and testing communities. Several tech publications have already published reviews that feature WebXPRT results, and the number of WebXPRT 4 runs is growing by about fifty percent each month, more than twice the rate of growth for WebXPRT 3 after launch.

As WebXPRT 4 use continues to grow, and more tech publications and OEM labs add WebXPRT 4 to their benchmark suites, we encourage you to keep an eye on the WebXPRT 4 results viewer. The viewer currently has about 120 test results, and we’ll continue to populate the viewer with the latest PT-curated WebXPRT 4 results each week.

You don’t have to be a tech journalist to publish a WebXPRT 4 result, however. We publish any results—including individual user submissions—that meet our evaluation criteria. To submit a result for publication consideration, simply follow the straightforward submission instructions after the test completes. Scores must be consistent with general expectations and must include enough detailed system information that we can determine whether the score makes sense. If you’ve tested with WebXPRT 4 on a new device, or any device or device configuration that’s not already present in the results viewer, we encourage you to send in the result. We want to hear from you!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Performance benchmarking, results, results submission, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, webxprt 4 |

Using WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of popular browsers

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on April 14, 2022

From time to time, we like to run a series of in-house WebXPRT comparison tests to see if recent updates have changed the performance rankings of popular web browsers. We published our most recent comparison last October, when we used WebXPRT 3 to compare Windows 10 and Windows 11 browser performance on the same system. Now that WebXPRT 4 is live, it’s time to update our comparison series with the newest member of the XPRT family.

For this round of tests, we used a Dell XPS 13 7930, which features an Intel Core i3-10110U processor and 4 GB of RAM, running Windows 11 Home updated to version 21H2 (22000.593). We installed all current Windows updates and tested on a clean system image. After the update process completed, we turned off updates to prevent them from interfering with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 three times each across five browsers: Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera. The posted score for each browser is the median of the three test runs.

In our previous round of tests with WebXPRT 3, Google Chrome narrowly beat out Firefox in Windows 10 and Windows 11 testing, but the scores among three of the Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, and Opera) were close enough that most users performing common daily tasks would be unlikely to notice a difference. Brave performance lagged by about 7 percent, a difference that may be noticeable to most users. This time, when testing updated versions of the browsers with WebXPRT 4 on Windows 11, the rankings changed. Edge was the clear winner, with a 2.2 percent performance advantage over Chrome. Firefox came in last, about 3 percent slower than Opera, which was in the middle of the pack. Performance from Brave improved to the point that it was no longer lagging the other Chromium-based browsers.

Do these results mean that Microsoft Edge will always provide you with a speedier web experience? A device with a higher WebXPRT score will probably feel faster during daily use than one with a lower score. For comparisons on the same system, however, the answer depends in part on the types of things you do on the web, how the extensions you’ve installed affect performance, how frequently the browsers issue updates and incorporate new web technologies, and how accurately each browser’s default installation settings reflect how you would set up that browser for your daily workflow.

In addition, browser speed can increase or decrease significantly after an update, only to swing back in the other direction shortly thereafter. OS-specific optimizations can also affect performance, such as with Edge on Windows 11 and Chrome on Chrome OS. All these variables are important to keep in mind when considering how WebXPRT results translate to your everyday experience.

Do you have insights you’d like to share from using WebXPRT to compare browser performance? Let us know!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, Brave, Browser-based benchmarks, Chromium, Cross-platform benchmarks, Firefox, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla, Opera, Performance benchmarking, results, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, 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