Category: Performance benchmarking

Tracking device evolution with WebXPRT ‘15

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 |

Windows 10 upgrade?

By Eric Hale

on May 26, 2016

We’ve gotten reports that HDXPRT 2014 no longer works on newer versions of Windows 10. We ran tests in our labs and found that to be true.

At least one user has reported that the problem may be the version of CPU-Z the benchmark uses.

We’re working to track down the problem and hope to provide a workaround in the near future and a more definitive fix (if necessary) later.

Please let us know if you’ve encountered this issue and if you’ve found any ways to work around it.

Eric

Posted in BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, HDXPRT, HDXPRT 2014, HDXPRT capabilities, HDXPRT development process, Performance benchmarking, Windows 10 |

Feedback

By Eric Hale

on April 28, 2016

We’re excited by the high level of interest the community and vendors have shown in the upcoming cross-platform MobileXPRT benchmark. We’ve received general observations about what a cross-platform benchmark should be, along with detailed suggestions about tests, subsystems, and benchmark architecture. We appreciate all of the responses and welcome more, so please keep them coming!

The number-one concern we’ve heard is that we be sure the benchmark tests all platforms fairly. Transparency will be essential to assure users that the tests are performing the same work on all platforms and performing the work in the appropriate way for each platform.

Fortunately, the XPRTs are well positioned to address that concern. From the beginning, we have used a community model. The source code is available to all members, which is the ultimate in transparency. (If you’re not a community member, it’s easy to join!)

Speaking of source code, we released TouchXPRT source code to the community this week. Members can download the source here (login required).

Eric

Posted in Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, Future of performance evaluation, MobileXPRT, Performance benchmarking, What makes a good benchmark? |

Category: Performance benchmarking

Tracking device evolution with WebXPRT ‘15

Apples to apples?

An anniversary update

Getting it right

Windows 10 upgrade?

Feedback

Check out the other XPRTs: