Category: What makes a good benchmark?

Rebalancing our portfolio

on September 29, 2016

We’ve written recently about the many new ways people are using their devices, the growing breadth of types of devices, and how application environments also are changing. We’ve been thinking a lot about the ways benchmarks need to adapt and what new tests we should be developing.

As part of this process, we’re reviewing the XPRT portfolio. An example we wrote about recently was Google’s statement that they are bringing Android apps to Chrome OS and moving away from Chrome apps. Assuming the plan comes to fruition, it has big implications for CrXPRT, and possibly for WebXPRT as well. Another example is that once upon a time, HDXPRT included video playback tests. The increasing importance of 4K video might mean we should bring them back.

As always, we’re interested in your thoughts. Which tests do you see as the most useful going forward? Which ones do you think might be past their prime? What new areas do you like to see us start to address? Let us know!

Over the coming weeks, we’ll share our conclusions based on these market forces and your feedback. We’re excited about the possibilities and hope you are as well.

Bill

Posted in Android, Application-based benchmarks, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Chrome OS, Collaborative benchmark development, CrXPRT, Future of performance evaluation, HDXPRT, WebXPRT, What makes a good benchmark? |

Doing things a little differently

By Eric Hale

on September 8, 2016

I enjoyed watching the Apple Event live yesterday. There were some very impressive announcements. (And a few which were not so impressive – the Breathe app would get on my nerves really fast!)

One thing that I was very impressed by was the ability of the iPhone 7 Plus camera to create depth-of-field effects. Some of the photos demonstrated how the phone used machine learning to identify people in the shot and keep them in focus while blurring the background, creating a shallow depth of field. This causes the subjects in a photo to really stand out. The way we take photos is not the only thing that’s changing. There was a mention of machine learning being part of Apple’s QuickType keyboard, to help with “contextual prediction.”

This is only one product announcement, but it’s a reminder that we need to be constantly examining every part of the XPRTs. Recently, we talked a bit about how people will be using their devices in new ways in the coming months, and we need to be developing tests for these new applications. However, we must also stay focused on keeping existing tests fresh. People will keep taking photos, but today’s photo editing tests may not be relevant a year or two from now.

Were there any announcements yesterday that got you excited? Let us know!

Eric

Posted in Apple, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Future of performance evaluation, Machine learning, Phones, What makes a good benchmark? |

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? |

Open source?

By Bill Catchings

on July 14, 2016

We’re proud of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community and its accomplishments over the last five years. We’re also thankful for the contributions the members of the community have made. One of the benefits of membership is access to the source code for all the XPRT performance tools. This has meant that the code is available to anyone willing to take the easy step of joining the community.

Behind our decision to use this model rather than a more traditional, open-source model was the need to control derivative works. The license agreement for the source allows members to modify the source, but not to claim that the results from that derivative code are XPRT results. For example, as a member, you may download the TouchXPRT source and modify the workloads for your specific purposes, but you can’t refer to the results as TouchXPRT results.

After much thought and discussion, we have come to believe that we can protect the benchmarks’ reputation within a traditional, open-source framework. While our original concerns are still valid, we think that the success and stature of the XPRTs is such that we can make it available via open source.

However, before we take this step, we want to hear the thoughts, concerns, and opinions of both our community members and the wider public.

Please note that if we do make the code open source, the other benefits of being a member—access to requests for comment, design documents, and community previews—will not change.

Please let us know that you think. Email us or contact us on Twitter.

Bill

Posted in BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Open Source, TouchXPRT, What makes a good benchmark? |

Seeing the future

By Eric Hale

on July 7, 2016

Back in April we wrote about how Bill’s trip to IDF16 in Shenzhen got us thinking about future benchmarks. Technologies like virtual reality, the Internet of things, and computer vision are going to open up lots of new applications.

Yesterday I saw an amazing article that talked about an automatic computer vision system that is able to detect early-stage esophageal cancer from endoscopy images. These lesions can be difficult for physicians to detect, and the system did very well when compared to four experts who participated in the test. The article contains a link to the original study, for those of you who want more detail.

To me, this is the stuff of science fiction. It’s a very impressive accomplishment. Clearly, new technologies are going to lead to many new and exciting applications.

While this type of application is more specialized than the typical XPRT, things like this get us really excited about the possibilities for the future. Have you seen an application that impressed you recently? Let us know!

Eric

Posted in Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, computer vision, Future of performance evaluation, IDF, Internet of things, IoT, Virtual reality, What makes a good benchmark? |

Watching students become masters

By Eric Hale

on June 23, 2016

As you know, last year, PT sponsored a senior project at the Senior Design Center of North Carolina State University (NCSU). The students created Nebula Wolf, a mini game that might evolve into a future benchmark test. It was a valuable collaboration for us and a very educational experience for the students involved.

I’ve talked before about the emerging technologies we’re considering for new benchmarks. Today, I met with the folks at the NCSU Senior Design Center to discuss a possible future project. We’re hoping to harness the immense energy of these students by having them explore one of these new technologies, and then build on what they discover. Nothing is set yet, but we will, as always, keep you informed as things develop.

We’ll be sharing some exciting news about the XPRT Women Code-a-Thon tomorrow. Check back to find out more! Meanwhile, we hope you enjoy as much as we did the University of Washington Tacoma article on student Viveret, the first place winner of the XPRT Women Code-a-Thon.

Eric

Posted in Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, Nebula Wolf, North Carolina State University, What makes a good benchmark?, XPRT Women Code-a-Thon |

Category: What makes a good benchmark?

Rebalancing our portfolio

Doing things a little differently

Apples to apples?

Open source?

Seeing the future

Watching students become masters

Check out the other XPRTs: