Category: Performance benchmarking

HDXPRT’s future

on November 3, 2016

While industry pundits have written many words about the death of the PC, Windows PCs are going through a renaissance. No longer do you just choose between a desktop or a laptop in beige or black. There has been an explosion of choices.

Whether you want a super-thin notebook, a tablet, or a two-in-one device, the market has something to offer. Desktop systems can be small devices on your desk, all-in-ones with the PC built into the monitor, or old-style boxes that sit on the floor. You can go with something inexpensive that will be sufficient for many tasks or invest in a super-powerful PC capable of driving today’s latest VR devices. Or you can get a new Microsoft Surface Studio, an example of the new types of devices entering the PC scene.

The current proliferation of PC choices means that tools that help buyers understand the performance differences between systems are more important than they have been in years. Because HDXPRT is one such tool, we expect demand for it to increase.

We have many tasks ahead of us as we prepare for this increased demand. The first is to release a version of HDXPRT 2014 that doesn’t require a patch. We are working on that and should have something ready later this month.

For the other tasks, we need your input. We believe we need to update HDXPRT to reflect the world of high-definition content. It’s tempting to simply change the name to UHDXPRT, but this was our first XPRT and I’m partial to the original name. How about you?

As far as tests, what should a 2017 version of HDXPRT include? We think 4K-related workloads are a must, but aren’t sure whether 4K playback tests are the way to go. What do you think? We need to update other content, such as photo and video resolutions, and replace outdated applications with current versions. Would a VR test would be worthwhile?

Please share your thoughts with us over the coming weeks as we put together a plan for the next version of HDXPRT!

Bill

Posted in Application-based benchmarks, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, HDXPRT, HDXPRT development process, Performance benchmarking, What makes a good benchmark?, Windows 10 |

Tracking device evolution with WebXPRT ’15, part 2

By Justin Greene

on October 27, 2016

Last week, we used the Apple iPhone as a test case to show how hardware advances are often reflected in benchmark scores over time. When we compared WebXPRT 2015 scores for various iPhone models, we saw a clear trend of progressively higher scores as we moved from phones with an A7 chip to phones with A8, A9, and A10 Fusion chips. Performance increases over time are not surprising, but WebXPRT ’15 scores also showed us that upgrading from an iPhone 6 to an iPhone 6s is likely to have a much greater impact on web-browsing performance than upgrading from an iPhone 6s to an iPhone 7.

This week, we’re revisiting our iPhone test case to see how software updates can boost device performance without any changes in hardware. The original WebXPRT ’15 tests for the iPhone 5s ran on iOS 8.3, and the original tests for the iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, and SE ran on variants of iOS 9. We updated each phone to iOS 10.0.2 and ran several iterations of WebXPRT ’15.

Upgrading from iOS 8.3 to iOS 10 on the iPhone 5s caused a 17% increase in web-browsing performance, as measured by WebXPRT. Upgrading from iOS 9 to iOS 10 on the iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, and SE produced web-browsing performance gains of 2.6%, 3.6%, and 3.1%, respectively.

The chart below shows the WebXPRT ’15 scores for a range of iPhones, with each iPhone’s iOS version upgrade noted in parentheses. The dark blue columns on the left represent the original scores, and the light blue columns on the right represent the upgrade scores.

As with our hardware comparison last week, these scores are the median of a range of scores for each device in our database. These scores come both from our own testing and from device reviews from popular tech media outlets.

These results reinforce a message that we repeat often, that many factors other than hardware influence performance. Designing benchmarks that deliver relevant and reliable scores requires taking all factors into account.

What insights have you gained recently from WebXPRT ’15 testing? Let us know!

Justin

Posted in Apple, Application-based benchmarks, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Browser-based benchmarks, iOS, Performance benchmarking, Uncategorized, WebXPRT |

Tracking device evolution with WebXPRT ‘15

By Justin Greene

on October 20, 2016

The XPRT Spotlight on the Apple iPhone 7 Plus gives us a great opportunity to look at the progression of WebXPRT 2015 scores for the iPhone line and see how hardware and software advances are often reflected in benchmark scores over time. This week, we’ll see how the evolution of Apple’s mobile CPU architecture has boosted web-browsing performance. In a future post, we’ll see the impact of iOS development.

As we’ve discussed in the past, multiple factors can influence benchmark results. While we’re currently using the iPhone as a test case, the same principles apply to all types of devices. We should also note that WebXPRT is an excellent gauge of expected web-browsing performance during real-world tasks, which is different than pure CPU performance in isolation.

When looking at WebXPRT ’15 scores in our database, we see that iPhone web-browsing performance has more than doubled in the last three years. In 2013, an iPhone 5s with an Apple A7 chip earned an overall WebXPRT ’15 score of 100. Today, a new iPhone 7 Plus with an A10 Fusion chip reports a score somewhere close to 210. The chart below shows the WebXPRT ’15 scores for a range of iPhones, with each iPhone’s CPU noted in parentheses.

Moving forward from the A7 chip in the iPhone 5s to the A8 chip in the iPhone 6 and the A9 chip in the iPhone 6s and SE, we see consistent score increases. The biggest jump, at over 48%, appears in the transition from the A8 to the A9 chip, implying that folks upgrading from an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus to anything newer would notice a huge difference in web performance.

In general, folks upgrading from an A9-based phone (6S, 6S Plus, or SE) to an A10-based phone (7 and 7 Plus) could expect an increase in web performance of over 6.5%.

The scores we list represent the median of a range of scores for each device in our database. These scores come from our own testing, as well as from device reviews from media outlets such as AnandTech, Notebookcheck, and Tom’s Hardware. It’s worth noting that the highest A9 score in our database (AnandTech’s iPhone SE score of 205) overlaps with the lowest A10 Fusion score (Tom’s Hardware of Germany’s iPhone 7 score of 203), so while the improvement in median scores is clear, performance will vary according to individual phones and other factors.

Soon, we’ll revisit our iPhone test case to see how software updates can boost device performance without any changes in hardware. For more details on the newest iPhones, visit the Spotlight comparison page to see how iPhone 7 and 7 Plus specs and WebXPRT scores stack up.

Justin

Posted in Apple, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2015 |

Apples to apples?

By Eric Hale

on August 25, 2016

PCMag published a great review of the Opera browser this week. In addition to looking at the many features Opera offers, the review included performance data from multiple benchmarks, which look at areas such as hardware graphics acceleration, WebGL performance, memory consumption, and battery life.

Three of the benchmarks have a significant, though not exclusive, focus on JavaScript performance: Google Octane 2.0, JetStream 1.1, and WebXPRT 2015. The three benchmarks did not rank the browsers the same way, and in the past, we‘ve discussed some of the reasons why this happens. In addition to the difference in tests, there are also sometimes differences in approaches that are worth considering.

For example, consider the test descriptions for JetStream 1.1. You’ll immediately notice that the tests are much lower-level tests than the ones in WebXPRT. However, consider these phrases from a few of the test descriptions:

code-first-load “…This test attempts to defeat the browser’s caching capabilities…”
splay-latency “Tests the worst-case performance…”
zlib “…modified to restrict code caching opportunities…”

While the XPRTs test typical performance for higher level applications, the tests in JetStream are tweaked to stress devices in very specific ways, some of which are not typical. The information these tests provide can be very useful for engineers and developers, but may not be as meaningful to the typical user.

I have to stress that both approaches are valid, but they are doing somewhat different things. There’s a cliché about comparing apples to apples, but not all apples are the same. If you’re making a pie, a Granny Smith would be a good choice, but for snacking, you might be better off with a Red Delicious. Knowing a benchmark’s purpose will help you find the results that are most meaningful to you.

Eric

Posted in Benchmark metrics, Browser-based benchmarks, JavaScript, Performance benchmarking, WebGL, WebXPRT, What makes a good benchmark? |

An anniversary update

By Justin Greene

on July 21, 2016

The Windows 10 Anniversary Update release is scheduled for August 2, and we’ve been running the XPRTs on the Windows Insider preview builds. While we can’t publish performance data from developer builds, we’re happy to say that WebXPRT and TouchXPRT run well on the Anniversary Update.

The story for HDXPRT 2014 is more complicated. Back in May, we reported that it would not run on more recent versions of Windows. However, we’ve identified steps that enable HDXPRT to run on the current stable Windows 10 build, as well as the latest Anniversary Update preview. It’s running well, but it’s possible that testers will encounter other issues as Microsoft releases new builds.

We have included the steps below. We’re considering an update to HDXPRT 2014 that will incorporate these changes. If you have any comments or suggestions related to HDXPRT, please let us know.

Justin

Summary
In addition to the normal system configuration requirements for HDXPRT, testers must also overwrite HDXPRT’s CPU-Z files with newer versions and change the default browser from Microsoft Edge to Internet Explorer. After configuring the system for HDXPRT testing, testers may encounter errors related to administrative privileges when attempting to launch Microsoft Edge. Returning User Account Control settings to their default pre-configuration state resolves the problem.

Process
1. Install the latest version of CPU-Z.
      a. Open any browser and download the latest version of CPU-Z for Windows
          (currently CPU-Z 1.76).
      b. Install CPU-Z on the system, using the default settings and installation path.
2. Install the HDXPRT 2014 benchmark using the default installation process. Reboot the system
    after installation.
3. Copy all the files from the C:\Program Files\CPUID\CPU-Z\ directory to the C:\Program Files
    (x86)\HDXPRT\bin, and overwrite the existing CPU-Z files.
4. Change the default browser from Microsoft Edge to Internet Explorer:
      a. Open the Windows Settings app and select System/Default apps.
      b. Under Web browser, click the Edge icon, and select Internet Explorer from the list.
      c. At the Before you switch window, click Switch anyway.
      d. Close the Settings app.
5. Adjust SmartScreen and security settings:
      a. Open Internet Explorer.
      b. Go to Settings/Internet options/Security, and make the following changes for the Internet
           and Trusted Sites zones:
            i. Select Custom Level.
            ii. Disable SmartScreen Filter.
            iii. Under Launching applications and unsafe files, click Enable (not Secure).
            iv. Click OK, and click Apply. If a warning message appears, click Yes.
6. Restart the system.
7. Open HDXPRT and run the benchmark normally.

If, after installing HDXPRT, you encounter an error related to administrative permissions when trying to open Microsoft Edge, return User Account Controls to the default setting, and restart the system. The default User Account Control setting is the third notch from the bottom: “Notify me only when apps try to makes changes to my computer.”

Posted in BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, HDXPRT, HDXPRT 2014, Performance benchmarking, TouchXPRT, Uncategorized, WebXPRT 2015, Windows 10, Windows 10 Anniversary Update |

Getting it right

By Eric Hale

on June 2, 2016

Back in April Bill announced that we are working on a cross-platform benchmark. We asked for your thoughts and comments, and you’ve been great! We really appreciate all the great ideas.

We’ve been using code from MobileXPRT and TouchXPRT as the basis for some experiments. In his post, Bill talked about the difficulty of porting applications. However, even though we have expertise in porting applications, it’s proving more difficult than we originally thought. Benchmarks are held to a higher standard than most applications. It’s not enough for the code to run reliably and efficiently, it must compare the different platforms fairly.

One thing we know for sure: getting it right is going to take a while. However, we owe it to you to make sure that the benchmark is reliable and fair on all platforms it supports. We will, of course, keep you informed as things progress.

In the meantime, keep sending your ideas!
Eric

Posted in Android, Application-based benchmarks, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, iOS, MobileXPRT, Performance benchmarking, TouchXPRT, WebXPRT, Windows 10 |

Category: Performance benchmarking

HDXPRT’s future

Tracking device evolution with WebXPRT ’15, part 2

Tracking device evolution with WebXPRT ‘15

Apples to apples?

An anniversary update

Getting it right

Check out the other XPRTs: