Category: Cross-platform benchmarks

WebXPRT in action

on November 1, 2018

Just this past summer, WebXPRT passed the 250,000-run milestone, and since then, the run total has already passed 330,000. September was our biggest month ever, with over 28,000 WebXPRT runs! We sometimes like to show the community how far a reach the XPRTs have around the world by reporting the latest stats on the number of articles and reviews that mention the XPRTs, and the fact is that most of those mentions involve WebXPRT. Today, I thought it would be interesting to bring the numbers to life and provide a glimpse of how the tech press uses WebXPRT. Here’s a sample of WebXPRT in action during the past couple of weeks.

PCWorld published WebXPRT 2015 and WebXPRT 3 scores in a review of the Snapdragon 50-based Samsung Galaxy Book 2.
AnandTech published WebXPRT 3 and WebXPRT 2015 score in their detailed analysis of the Intel Core i9-9900K, Core i7-9700K, and Core i5-9600K.
The Tech Report published a WebXPRT 3 score in its AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X review.
AnandTech published WebXPRT 3 scores for the AMD Threadripper 2 2920X and 2970WX in an extensive review, and explained why they’ll be using WebXPRT in their 2019 benchmark suite.
Tom’s Hardware published a WebXPRT 2015 score in an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX review.
Notebookcheck used WebXPRT 3 in an LG Q Stylus review and WebXPRT 2015 in a Dell Chromebook 11 3181 review.
3DNews (Russia) used WebXPRT 2015 in its Apple iPhone XS Max review.

While WebXPRT continues to be a useful tool for tech enthusiasts around the world, you don’t have to be a tech expert to benefit from it. If you’d like to know more about WebXPRT, check out our recent video, What is WebXPRT and why should I care?

Justin

Posted in Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2015, WebXPRT 3 | Tagged 3DNews, AnandTech, BenchmarkXPRT, Notebookcheck, PCWorld, The Tech Report, Tom's Hardware, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2015 |

Check out our new WebXPRT video!

By Justin Greene

on September 20, 2018

At over 305,000 runs and counting, WebXPRT is our most popular benchmark app. Device manufacturers, tech journalists, and developers around the world use WebXPRT because test runs are quick and easy, it runs on almost anything with a web browser, and it provides reliable data about how well devices perform when completing real-world tasks.

WebXPRT is not just for “techies,” however. To help explain what WebXPRT does and why it matters to everyday consumers, we’ve published a new video, What is WebXPRT and why should I care? The video explains the concepts behind some of WebXPRT’s workloads and how even small delays in common online tasks can add up to big headaches and a significant amount of wasted time. We all want to avoid those problems, and WebXPRT can help anyone that wants to see how their device, or a new device they’re thinking about buying, stacks up against the alternatives. We encourage you to check out the video below, which you can also find on YouTube and WebXPRT.com. If you have any questions about WebXPRT, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Mobile devices, Performance benchmarking, Video, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3 |

Which browser is the fastest? It’s complicated.

By Justin Greene

on July 5, 2018

PCWorld recently published the results of a head-to-head browser performance comparison between Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera. As we’ve noted about similar comparisons, no single browser was the fastest in every test. Browser speed sounds like a straightforward metric, but the reality is complex.

For the comparison, PCWorld used three JavaScript-centric test suites (JetStream, SunSpider, and Octane), one benchmark that simulates user actions (Speedometer), a few in-house tests of their own design, and one benchmark that simulates real-world web applications (WebXPRT). Edge came out on top in JetStream and SunSpider, Opera won in Octane and WebXPRT, and Chrome had the best results in Speedometer and PCWorld’s custom workloads.

The reason that the benchmarks rank the browsers so differently is that each one has a unique emphasis and tests a specific set of workloads and technologies. Some focus on very low-level JavaScript tasks, some test additional technologies such as HTML5, and some are designed to identify strengths or weakness by stressing devices in unusual ways. These approaches are all valid, and it’s important to understand exactly what a given score represents. Some scores reflect a very broad set of metrics, while others assess a very narrow set of tasks. Some scores help you to understand the performance you can expect from a device in your everyday life, and others measure performance in scenarios that you’re unlikely to encounter. For example, when Eric discussed a similar topic in the past, he said the tests in JetStream 1.1 provided information that “can be very useful for engineers and developers, but may not be as meaningful to the typical user.”

As we do with all the XPRTs, we designed WebXPRT to test how devices handle the types of real-world tasks consumers perform every day. While lab techs, manufacturers, and tech journalists can all glean detailed data from WebXPRT, the test’s real-world focus means that the overall score is relevant to the average consumer. Simply put, a device with a higher WebXPRT score is probably going to feel faster to you during daily use than one with a lower score. In today’s crowded tech marketplace, that piece of information provides a great deal of value to many people.

What are your thoughts on browser testing? We’d love to hear from you.

Justin

Posted in Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, HTML5, JavaScript, Performance benchmarking, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2015, WebXPRT 3, What makes a good benchmark? |

WebXPRT passes another milestone!

By Justin Greene

on June 14, 2018

We’re excited to see that users have successfully completed over 250,000 WebXPRT runs! From the original WebXPRT 2013 to the most recent version, WebXPRT 3, this tool has been popular with manufacturers, developers, consumers, and media outlets around the world because it’s easy to run, it runs quickly and on a wide variety of platforms, and it evaluates device performance using real-world tasks.

If you’ve run WebXPRT in any of the more than 458 cities and 64 countries from which we’ve received complete test data—including newcomers Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden, and Uruguay—we’re grateful for your help in reaching this milestone. Here’s to another quarter-million runs!

If you haven’t yet transitioned your browser testing to WebXPRT 3, now is a great time to give it a try! WebXPRT 3 includes updated photo workloads with new images and a deep learning task used for image classification. It also uses an optical character recognition task in the Encrypt Notes and OCR scan workload and combines part of the DNA Sequence Analysis scenario with a writing sample/spell check scenario to simulate online homework in the new Online Homework workload. Users carry out tasks like these on their browsers daily, making these workloads very effective for assessing how well a device will perform in the real world.

Happy testing to everyone, and if you have any questions about WebXPRT 3 or the XPRTs in general, feel free to ask!

Justin

Posted in Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Machine learning, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 2013, WebXPRT 2015, WebXPRT 3 | Tagged benchmarks, browser, deep learning, WebXPRT |

More on the way for the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight

By Justin Greene

on May 24, 2018

In the coming months, we’ll continue to add more devices and helpful features to the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight. We’re especially interested in adding data points and visual aids that make it easier to quickly understand the context of each device’s test scores. For instance, those of us who are familiar with WebXPRT 3 scores know that an overall score of 250 is pretty high, but site visitors who are unfamiliar with WebXPRT probably won’t know how that score compares to scores for other devices.

We designed Spotlight to be a source of objective data, in contrast to sites that provide subjective ratings for devices. As we pursue our goal of helping users make sense of scores, we want to maintain this objectivity and avoid presenting information in ways that could be misleading.

Introducing comparison aids to the site is forcing us to make some tricky decisions. Because we value input from XPRT community members, we’d love to hear your thoughts on one of the questions we’re facing: How should our default view present a device’s score?

We see three options:

1) Present the device’s score in relation to the overall high and low scores for that benchmark across all devices.
2) Present the device’s score in relation to the overall high and low scores for that benchmark across the broad category of devices to which that device belongs (e.g., phones).
3) Present the device’s score in relation to the overall high and low scores for that benchmark across a narrower sub-category of devices to which that device belongs (e.g., high-end flagship phones).

To think this through, consider WebXPRT, which runs on desktops, laptops, phones, tablets, and other devices. Typically, the WebXPRT scores for phones and tablets are lower than scores for desktop and laptop systems. The first approach helps to show just how fast high-end desktops and laptops handle the WebXPRT workloads, but it could make a phone or tablet look slow, even if its score was good for its category. The second approach would prevent unfair default comparisons between different device types but would still present comparisons between devices that are not true competitors (e.g., flagship phones vs. budget phones). The third approach is the most careful, but would introduce an element of subjectivity because determining the sub-category in which a device belongs is not always clear cut.

Do you have thoughts on this subject, or recommendations for Spotlight in general? If so, Let us know.

Justin

Posted in Cross-platform benchmarks, Mobile devices, Performance of computing devices, Performance testing on tablets, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight | Tagged benchmark, desktops, laptops, phones, Spotlight, tablets, WebXPRT, XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight |

Just before showtime

By Justin Greene

on March 1, 2018

In case you missed the announcement, WebXPRT 3 is now live! Please try it out, submit your test results, and feel free to send us your questions or comments.

During the final push toward launch day, it occurred to us that not all of our readers are aware of the steps involved in preparing a benchmark for general availability (GA). Here’s a quick overview of what we did over the last several weeks to prepare for the WebXPRT 3 release, a process that follows the same approach we use for all new XPRTs.

After releasing the community preview (CP), we started on the final build. During this time, we incorporated features that we were not able to include in the CP and fixed a few outstanding issues. Because we always try to make sure that CP results are comparable to eventual GA results, these issues rarely involve the workloads themselves or anything that affects scoring. In the case of WebXPRT 3, the end-of-test results submission form was not fully functional in the CP, so we finished making it ready for prime time.

The period between CP and GA releases is also a time to incorporate any feedback we get from the community during initial testing. One of the benefits of membership in the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community is access to pre-release versions of new benchmarks, along with an opportunity to make your voice heard during the development process.

When the GA candidate build is ready, we begin two types of extensive testing. First, our quality assurance (QA) team performs a thorough review, running the build on numerous devices. In the case of WebXPRT, it also involves testing with multiple browsers. The QA team also keeps a sharp eye out for formatting problems and bugs.

The second type of testing involves comparing the current version of the benchmark with prior versions. We tested WebXPRT 3 on almost 100 devices. While WebXPRT 2015 and WebXPRT 3 scores are not directly comparable, we normalize scores for both sets of results and check that device performance is scaling in the same way. If it isn’t, we need to determine why not.

Finally, after testing is complete and the new build is ready, we finalize all related documentation and tie the various pieces together on the web site. This involves updating the main benchmark page and graphics, the FAQ page, the results tables, and the members’ area.

That’s just a brief summary of what we’ve been up to with WebXPRT in the last few weeks. If you have any questions about the XPRTs or the development community, feel free to ask!

Justin

Posted in Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Browser-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, Community Preview, Cross-platform benchmarks, WebXPRT, What makes a good benchmark? |

Category: Cross-platform benchmarks

WebXPRT in action

Check out our new WebXPRT video!

Which browser is the fastest? It’s complicated.

WebXPRT passes another milestone!

More on the way for the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight

Just before showtime

Check out the other XPRTs: