BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Chromium

Thinking through a potential WebXPRT 4 battery life test

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on October 17, 2024

In recent blog posts, we’ve discussed some of the technical considerations we’re working through on our path toward a future AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload. While we’re especially excited about adding to WebXPRT 4’s AI performance evaluation capabilities, AI is not the only area of potential WebXPRT 4 expansion that we’ve thought about. We’re always open to hearing suggestions for ways we can improve WebXPRT 4, including any workload proposals you may have. Several users have asked about the possibility of a WebXPRT 4 battery life test, so today we’ll discuss what one might look like and some of the challenges we’d have to overcome to make it a reality.

Battery life tests fall into two primary categories: simple rundown tests and performance-weighted tests. Simple rundown tests measure battery life during extreme idle periods and loops of movie playbacks, etc., but do not reflect the wide-ranging mix of activities that characterize a typical day for most users. While they can be useful for performing very specific apples-to-apples comparisons, these tests don’t always give consumers an accurate estimate of the battery life they would experience in daily use.

In contrast, performance-weighted battery life tests, such as the one in CrXPRT 2, attempt to reflect real-world usage. The CrXPRT battery life test simulates common daily usage patterns for Chromebooks by including all the productivity workloads from the performance test, plus video playback, audio playback, and gaming scenarios. It also includes periods of wait/idle time. We believe this mixture of diverse activity and idle time better represents typical real-life behavior patterns. This makes the resulting estimated battery life much more helpful for consumers who are trying to match a device’s capabilities with their real-world needs.

From a technical standpoint, WebXPRT’s cross-platform nature presents us with several challenges that we did not face while developing the CrXPRT battery life test for ChromeOS. While the WebXPRT performance tests run in almost any browser, cross-browser differences and limitations in battery life reporting may restrict any future battery life test to a single browser or browser family. For instance, with the W3C Battery Status API, we can currently query battery status data from non-mobile Chromium-based browsers (e.g., Chrome, Edge, Opera, etc.), but not from Firefox or Safari. If a WebXPRT 4 battery life test supported only a single browser family, such as Chromium-based browsers, would you still be interested in using it? Please let us know.

A browser-based battery life workflow also presents other challenges that we do not face in native client applications, such as CrXPRT:

  • A browser-based battery life test may require the user to check the starting and ending battery capacities, with no way for the app to independently verify data accuracy.
  • The battery life test could require more babysitting in the event of network issues. We can catch network failures and try to handle them by reporting periods of network disconnection, but those interruptions could influence the battery life duration.
  • The factors above could make it difficult to achieve repeatability. One way to address that problem would be to run the test in a standardized lab environment with a steady internet connection, but a long list of standardized environmental requirements would make the battery life test less attractive and less accessible to many testers.

We’re not sharing these thoughts to make a WebXPRT 4 battery life test seem like an impossibility. Rather, we want to offer our perspective on what the test might look like and describe some of the challenges and considerations in play. If you have thoughts about battery life testing, or experience with battery life APIs in one or more of the major browsers, we’d love to hear from you!

Justin

Posted in AI, battery life, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome, Chromium, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, CrXPRT, Firefox, Future of performance evaluation, Performance benchmarking, Safari | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Web APIs: Possible paths for the AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on September 19, 2024

In our last blog post, we discussed one of the major decision points we’re facing as we work on what we hope will be the first new AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload: choosing a Web AI framework. In today’s blog, we’re discussing another significant decision that we need to make for the future workload’s development path: choosing a web API.

Many of you are familiar with the concept of an application programming interface (API). Simply put, APIs implement sets of software rules, tools, and/or protocols that serve as intermediaries that make it possible for different computer programs or components to communicate with each other. APIs simplify many development tasks for programmers and provide standardized ways for applications to share data, functions, and system resources.

Web APIs fulfill the intermediary role of an API—through HTTP-based communication—for web servers (on the server side) or web browsers (on the client side). Client-side web APIs make it possible for browser-based applications to expand browser functionality. They execute the kinds of JavaScript, HTML5, and WebAssembly (Wasm) workloads—among other examples—that support the wide variety of browser extensions many of us use every day. WebXPRT uses those types of browser-based workloads to evaluate system performance. To lay a solid foundation for the first future browser-based AI workload, we need to choose a web API that will be compatible with WebXPRT and the Web AI framework and AI inference workload(s) we ultimately choose.

Currently, there are three main web API paths for running AI inference in a web browser: Web Neural Network (WebNN), Wasm, and WebGPU. These three web technologies are in various stages of development and standardization. Each has different levels of support within the major browsers. Here are basic overviews of each of the three options, as well as a few of our thoughts on the benefits and limitations that each may bring to the table for a future WebXPRT AI workload:

  • WebNN is a JavaScript API that enables developers to directly execute machine learning (ML) tasks on neural networks within web-based applications. WebNN makes it easier to integrate ML models into web apps, and it allows web apps to leverage the power of neural processing units (NPUs). WebNN has a lot going for it. It’s hardware-agnostic and works with various ML frameworks. It’s likely to be a major player in future browser-based inference applications. However, as a web standard, WebNN is still in the development stage and is only available in developer previews for Chromium-based browsers. Full default WebNN support could take a year or more.
  • Wasm is a binary instruction format that works across all modern browsers. Wasm provides a sandboxed environment that operates at near-native speeds and takes advantage of common hardware specs across platforms. Wasm’s capabilities offer web developers a great deal of flexibility for running complex client applications in the browser. Simply put, Wasm can help developers adapt their existing code for additional platforms and browser-based applications without requiring extensive code rewrites. Wasm’s flexibility and cross-platform compatibility is one of the reasons that we’ve already made use of Wasm in two existing WebXPRT 4 workloads that feature AI tasks: Organize Album using AI, and Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan. Wasm can also work together with other web APIs, such as WebGPU.
  • WebGPU enables web-based applications to directly access the graphics rendering and computational capabilities of a system’s GPU. The parallel computational abilities of GPUs make them especially well-suited to efficiently handle some of the demands of AI inference workloads, including image-based GenAI workloads or large language models. Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge currently support WebGPU, and it’s available in Safari through a tech preview.

Right now, we don’t think that WebNN will be fully out of the development phase in time to serve as our go-to web API for a new WebXPRT AI workload. Wasm and/or WebGPU appear to our best options for now. When WebNN is fully baked and available in mainstream browsers, it’s possible that we could port any existing Wasm- or WebGPU-based WebXPRT AI workloads to WebNN, which may open the possibility of cross-platform browser-based NPU performance comparisons.

All that said and as we mentioned in our previous post about Web AI frameworks, we have not made any final decisions about a web API or any aspect of the future workload. We’re still in the early stages of this project. We want your input.

If this discussion has sparked web AI ideas that you think would benefit the process, or if you have feedback you’d like to share, please feel free to contact us!

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome, Chromium, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, Future of performance evaluation, GenAI, Google, Google Chrome, GPU, HTML5, inference, JavaScript, large language models, Machine learning, Microsoft, Microsoft Edge, NPU, Performance benchmarking, Wasm, Web AI, web API, WebAssembly, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Updating our WebXPRT 4 browser performance comparisons with new gear

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on June 27, 2024

Once or twice per year, we refresh an ongoing series of WebXPRT comparison tests to see if recent updates have reordered the performance rankings of popular web browsers. We published our most recent comparison in January, when we used WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of five browsers on the same system.

This time, we’re publishing an updated set of comparison scores sooner than we normally would because we chose to move our testing to a newer reference laptop. The previous system—a Dell XPS 13 7930 with an Intel Core i3-10110U processor and 4 GB of RAM—is now several years old. We wanted to transition to a system that is more in line with current mid-range laptops. By choosing to test on a capable mid-tier laptop, our comparison scores are more likely to fall within the range of scores we would see from an typical user today.

Our new reference system is a Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 3 with an Intel Core i7-1270P processor and 16 GB of RAM. It’s running Windows 11 Home, updated to version 23H2 (22631.3527). Before testing, we installed all current Windows updates and tested on a clean system image. After the update process was complete, we turned off updates to prevent any further updates from interfering with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 three times each on five browsers: Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera. In Figure 1 below, each browser’s score is the median of the three test runs.

In our last round of tests—on the Dell XPS 13—the four Chromium-based browsers (Brave, Chrome, Edge, and Opera) produced close scores, with Edge taking a small lead among the four. Each of the Chromium browsers significantly outperformed Firefox, with the slowest of the Chromium browsers (Brave) outperforming Firefox by 13.5 percent.

In this round of tests—on the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s—the scores were very tight, with a difference of only 4 percent between the last-place browser (Brave) and the winner (Chrome). Interestingly, Firefox no longer trailed the four Chromium browsers—it was squarely in the middle of the pack.

Figure 1: The median scores from running WebXPRT 4 three times with each browser on the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s.

Unlike previous rounds that showed a higher degree of performance differentiation between the browsers, scores from this round of tests are close enough that most users wouldn’t notice a difference. Even if the difference between the highest and lowest scores was substantial, the quality of your browsing experience will often depend on factors such as the types of things you do on the web (e.g., gaming, media consumption, or multi-tab browsing), the impact of extensions on performance, and how frequently the browsers issue updates and integrate new technologies, among other things. It’s important to keep such variables in mind when thinking about how browser performance comparison results may translate to your everyday web experience.

Have you tried using WebXPRT 4 to test the speed of different browsers on the same system? If so, we’d love for you to tell us about it! Also, please tell us what other WebXPRT data you’d like to see!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Brave, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome, Chromium, Cross-platform benchmarks, Dell, Firefox, Google Chrome, Lenovo, Microsoft Edge, Opera, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, Windows 11 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , |

Comparing the WebXPRT 4 performance of five popular browsers

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on January 25, 2024

Every so often, we like to refresh 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 February, when we used WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of five browsers on the same system.

For this round of tests, we used the same Dell XPS 13 7930 laptop as last time, which features an Intel Core i3-10110U processor and 4 GB of RAM, running Windows 11 Home updated to version 23H2 (22631.307). We installed all current Windows updates, and updated each of the browsers under test: Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera.

After the update process completed, we turned off updates to prevent them from interfering with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 three times on each of the five browsers. The score we post for each browser is the median of the three test runs.

In our last round of tests, the range between high and low scores was tight, with an overall difference of only 4.3 percent. Edge squeaked out a win, with a 2.1 percent performance advantage over Chrome. Firefox came in last, but was only one overall score point behind the tied score of Brave and Opera.

In this round of testing, the rank order did not change, but we saw more differentiation in the range of scores. While the performance of each browser improved, the range between high and low scores widened to a 19.1 percent difference between first-place Edge and last-place Firefox. The scores of the four Chromium-based browsers (Brave, Opera, Chrome, and Edge) all improved by at least 21 points, while the Firefox score only improved by one point. 

Do these results mean that Microsoft Edge will always provide a faster web experience, or Firefox will always be slower than the others? Not necessarily. It’s true that a device with a higher WebXPRT score will probably feel faster during daily web activities than one with a much lower score, but your experience depends in part on the types of things you do on the web, along with your system’s privacy settings, memory load, ecosystem integration, extension activity, and web app capabilities.

In addition, browser speed can noticeably increase or decrease after an update, and OS-specific optimizations can 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 may translate to your everyday experience.

Have you used WebXPRT 4 to compare browser performance on the same system? Let us know how it turned out!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, Brave, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chromium, Firefox, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla, Opera, Performance benchmarking, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, Windows 11, Windows Update | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

Comparing the performance of popular browsers with WebXPRT 4

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on February 2, 2023

If you’ve been reading the XPRT blog for a while, you know that we occasionally like to revisit 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 April, when we used WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of five browsers on the same system.

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 22H2 (22621.1105). We installed all current Windows updates, and updated each of the browsers under test: Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera.

After the update process completed, we turned off updates to prevent them from interfering with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 three times on each of the five browsers. The score we post for each browser is the median of the three test runs.

In our last round of tests, 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. With updated versions of the browsers, the only change in rank order was that Brave moved into a tie with Opera.

While the rank order from this round of tests was very similar to the previous round, we did observe two clear performance trends: (1) the range between high and low scores was tighter, dropping from a difference of 7.8 percent to 4.3 percent, and (2) every browser demonstrated improved performance. The chart below illustrates both trends. Firefox showed the single largest score improvement at 7.8 percent, but the performance jump for each browser was considerable.

Do these results mean that Microsoft Edge will always provide a speedier web experience, or Firefox will always be slower than the others? Not necessarily. It’s true that a device with a higher WebXPRT score will probably feel faster during daily web activities than one with a much lower score, but your experience depends in part on the types of things you do on the web, along with your system’s privacy settings, memory load, ecosystem integration, extension activity, and web app capabilities.

In addition, browser speed can noticeably increase or decrease after an update, and OS-specific optimizations can 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.

Have you used WebXPRT to compare browser performance on the same system? Let us know how it turned out!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, BenchmarkXPRT, Brave, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome OS, Chromium, Cross-platform benchmarks, Firefox, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla, Opera, Performance benchmarking, results, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , |

An update on Chrome OS XPRT benchmark development

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on September 15, 2022

In July, we discussed the Chrome OS team’s decision to end support for Chrome apps, and how that will prevent us from publishing any future fixes or updates for CrXPRT 2. We also announced our goal of beginning development of an all-new Chrome OS XPRT benchmark by the end of this year. While we are actively discussing this benchmark and researching workload technologies and scenarios, we don’t foresee releasing a preview build this year.

The good news is that, in spite of a lack of formal support from the Chrome OS team, the CrXPRT 2 performance and battery life tests currently run without any known issues. We continue to monitor the status of CrXPRT and will inform our blog readers of any significant changes.

If you have any questions about CrXPRT, or ideas about the types of features or workloads you’d like to see in a new Chrome OS benchmark, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in battery life, benchmark, Chrome OS, Chromebooks, Chromium, CrXPRT, Google Chrome, Performance benchmarking | 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