Category: Collaborative benchmark development

Machine learning performance tool update

on October 19, 2017

Earlier this year we started talking about our efforts to develop a tool to help in evaluating machine learning performance. We’ve given some updates since then, but we’ve also gotten some questions, so I thought I’d do my best to summarize our answers for everyone.

Some have asked what kinds of algorithms we’ve been looking into. As we said in an earlier blog, we’re looking at algorithms involved in computer vision, natural language processing, and data analytics, particularly different aspects of computer vision.

One seemingly trivial question we’ve received regards the proposed name, MLXPRT. We have been thinking of this tool as evaluating machine learning performance, but folks have raised a valid concern that it may well be broader than that. Does machine learning include deep learning? What about other artificial intelligence approaches? I’ve certainly seen other approaches lumped into machine learning, probably because machine learning is the hot topic of the moment. It feels like everything is boasting, “Now with machine learning!”

While there is some value in being part of such a hot movement, we’ve begun to wonder if a more inclusive name, such as AIXPRT, would be better. We’d love to hear your thoughts on that.

We’ve also had questions about the kind of devices the tool will run on. The short answer is that we’re concentrating on edge devices. While there is a need for server AI/ML tools, we’ve been focusing on the evaluating the devices close to the end users. As a result, we’re looking at the inference aspect of machine learning rather than the training aspect.

Probably the most frequent thing we’ve been asked about is the timetable. While we’d hoped to have something available this year, we were overly optimistic. We’re currently working on a more detailed proposal of what the tool will be, and we aim to make that available by the end of this year. If we achieve that goal, our next one will be to have a preliminary version of the tool itself ready in the first half of 2018.

As always, we seek input from folks, like yourself, who are working in these areas. What would you most like to see in an AI/machine learning performance tool? Do you have any questions?

Bill

Posted in AI, Benchmark metrics, Collaborative benchmark development, computer vision, Future of performance evaluation, Machine learning, What makes a good benchmark? |

Everything old is new again

By Eric Hale

on September 28, 2017

I recently saw an article called “4 lessons for modern software developers from 1970s mainframe programming.” This caught my eye because I started programming in the late 1970s, and my first programming environment was an IBM 370.

The author talks about how, back in the old days, you had to write tight code because memory and computing resources were limited. He also talks about the great amount of time we spent planning, writing, proofreading, and revising our code—all on paper—before running it. We did that because computing resources were expensive and you would get in trouble for using too many. He’s right about that—I got reamed out a couple of times!

At first, it seemed like this was just another article by an old programmer talking about how sloppy and lazy the new generation is, but then he made an interesting point. Programming for embedded processors reintroduces the types of resource limitations we used to have to deal with. Cloud computing reintroduces having to pay for computing resources based on usage.

I personally think he goes too far in making his point – there are a lot times when rapid prototyping and iterative development are the best way to do things. However, his main thesis has merit. Some new applications may benefit from doing things the old way.

Cloud computing and embedded processors are, of course, important in machine learning applications. As we’re working on a machine learning XPRT, we’ll be following best practices for this new environment!

Eric

Posted in BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, Machine learning |

Decisions, decisions

By Justin Greene

on September 14, 2017

Back in April, we shared some of our initial ideas for a new version of WebXPRT, and work on the new benchmark is underway. Any time we begin the process of updating one of the XPRT benchmarks, one of the first decisions we face is how to improve workload content so it better reflects the types of technology average consumers use every day. Since benchmarks typically have a life cycle of two to four years, we want the benchmark to be relevant for at least the next couple of years.

For example, WebXPRT contains two photo-related workloads, Photo Effects and Organize Album. Photo Effects applies a series of effects to a set of photos, and Organize Album uses facial recognition technology to analyze a set of photos. In both cases, we want to use photos that represent the most relevant combination of image size, resolution, and data footprint possible. Ideally, the resulting image sizes and resolutions should differentiate processing speed on the latest systems, but not at the expense of being able to run reasonably on most current devices. We also have to confirm that the photos aren’t so large as to impact page load times unnecessarily.

The way this strategy works in practice is that we spend time researching hardware and operating system market share. Given that phones are the cameras that most people use, we look at them to help define photo characteristics. In 2017, the most widespread mobile OS is Android, and while reports vary depending on the metric used, the Samsung Galaxy S5 and Galaxy S7 are at or near the top of global mobile market share. For our purposes, the data tells us that choosing photo sizes and resolutions that mirror those of the Galaxy line is a good start, and a good chunk of Android users are either already using S7-generation technology, or will be shifting to new phones with that technology in the coming year. So, for the next version of WebXPRT, we’ll likely use photos that represent the real-life environment of an S7 user.

I hope that provides a brief glimpse into the strategies we use to evaluate workload content in the XPRT benchmarks. Of course, since the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community is an open development community, we’d love to hear your comments or suggestions!

Justin

Posted in Android, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2017, What makes a good benchmark? |

Planning the next version of HDXPRT

By Justin Greene

on July 20, 2017

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the capabilities and benefits of HDXPRT. This week, we want to share some initial ideas for the next version of HDXPRT, and invite you to send us any comments or suggestions you may have.

The first step towards a new HDXPRT will be updating the benchmark’s workloads to increase their value in the years to come. Primarily, this will involve updating application content, such as photos and videos, to more contemporary file resolutions and sizes. We think 4K-related workloads will increase the benchmark’s relevance, but aren’t sure whether 4K playback tests are necessary. What do you think?

The next step will be to update versions of the real-world trial applications included in the benchmark, including Adobe Photoshop Elements, Apple iTunes, Audacity, CyberLink MediaEspresso, and HandBrake. Are there other any applications you feel would be a good addition to HDXPRT’s editing photos, editing music, or converting videos test scenarios?

We’re also planning to update the UI to improve the look and feel of the benchmark and simplify navigation and functionality.

Last but not least, we’ll work to fix known problems, such as the hardware acceleration settings issue in MediaEspresso, and eliminate the need for workarounds when running HDXPRT on the Windows 10 Creators Update.

Do you have feedback on these ideas or suggestions for applications or test scenarios that we should consider for HDXPRT? Are there existing features we should remove? Are there elements of the UI that you find especially useful or would like to see improved? Please let us know. We want to hear from you and make sure that HDXPRT continues to meet your needs.

Justin

Posted in 4K, BenchmarkXPRT, Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, HDXPRT, HDXPRT capabilities, HDXPRT development process, HDXPRT release cycle, Let us know your thoughts, Performance benchmarking, What makes a good benchmark?, Windows 10 |

Thinking ahead to WebXPRT 2017

By Justin Greene

on April 13, 2017

A few months ago, Bill discussed our intention to update WebXPRT this year. Today, we want to share some initial ideas for WebXPRT 2017 and ask for your input.

Updates to the workloads provide an opportunity to increase the relevance and value of WebXPRT in the years to come. Here are a few of the ideas we’re considering:

For the Photo Enhancement workload, we can increase the data sizes of pictures. We can also experiment with additional types of photo enhancement such as background/foreground subtraction, collage creation, or panoramic/360-degree image viewing.
For the Organize Album workload, we can explore machine learning workloads by incorporating open source JavaScript libraries into web-based inferencing tests.
For the Local Notes workload, we’re investigating the possibility of leveraging natural-brain libraries for language processing functions.
For a new workload, we’re investigating the possibility of using online 3D modeling applications such as Tinkercad.

For the UI, we’re considering improvements to features like the in-test progress bars and individual subtest selection. We’re also planning to update the UI to make it visually distinct from older versions.

Throughout this process, we want to be careful to maintain the features that have made WebXPRT our most popular tool, with more than 141,000 runs to date. We’re committed to making sure that it runs quickly and simply in most browsers and produces results that are useful for comparing web browsing performance across a wide variety of devices.

Do you have feedback on these ideas or suggestions for browser technologies or test scenarios that we should consider for WebXPRT 2017? Are there existing features we should ditch? Are there elements of the UI that you find especially useful or would like to see improved? Please let us know. We want to hear from you and make sure that we’re crafting a performance tool that continues to meet your needs.

Justin

Posted in BenchmarkXPRT development community, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, Let us know your thoughts, Machine learning, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2017, What makes a good benchmark? |

Looking under the hood

By Justin Greene

on April 6, 2017

In the next couple of weeks, we’ll publish the source code and build instructions for the latest HDXPRT 2014 and BatteryXPRT 2014 builds. Access to XPRT source code is one of the benefits of BenchmarkXPRT Development Community membership. For readers who may not know, this a good time to revisit the reasons we make the source code available.

The primary reason is transparency; we want the XPRTs to be as open as possible. As part of our community model for software development, the source code is available to anyone who joins the community. Closed-source benchmark development can lead some people to infer that a benchmark is biased in some way. Our approach makes it impossible to hide any biases.

Another reason we publish source code is to encourage collaborative development and innovation. Community members are involved in XPRT development from the beginning, helping to identify emerging technologies in need of reliable benchmarking tools, suggesting potential workloads and improvements, reviewing design documents, and offering all sorts of general feedback.

Simply put, if you’re interested in benchmarking and the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community, then we’re interested in what you have to say! Community input helps us at every step of the process, and ultimately helps us to create benchmarking tools that are as reliable and relevant as possible.

If you’d like to review XPRT source code, but haven’t yet joined the community, we encourage you to go ahead and join! It’s easy, and if you work for a company or organization with an interest in benchmarking, you can join the community for free. Simply fill out the form with your company e-mail address and click the option to be considered for a free membership. We’ll contact you to verify the address is real and then activate your membership.

If you have any other questions about community membership or XPRT source code, feel free to contact us. We look forward to hearing from you!

Justin

Posted in BatteryXPRT 2014 for Android, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, HDXPRT, HDXPRT 2014, Open Source, Source code |

Category: Collaborative benchmark development

Machine learning performance tool update

Everything old is new again

Decisions, decisions

Planning the next version of HDXPRT

Thinking ahead to WebXPRT 2017

Looking under the hood

Check out the other XPRTs: