Category: Google Chrome

What do you think when you hear “Chromebook”?

on September 11, 2014

We’ve been thinking a lot about Chromebooks while doing all of our testing in preparation for the CrXPRT Community Preview. In both the models we’re testing and the ones announced in the press, we’ve seen just how much the Chromebook market is changing. Some folks even claim that Chromebook sales made up 35 percent of US commercial laptop sales in the first half of 2014. What’s even more interesting to us is the wide variety of Chromebooks on the market.

Choosing between Chromebooks these days is becoming more complicated than it used to be. There’s a greater range of hardware choices, and those choices can have a direct impact on performance and battery life. Some Chromebooks offer local storage up to 320 GB, touch screens, and 4G/LTE connectivity. Prices range widely, from $199 to $1,499. Even seemingly comparable systems can perform much differently when put to the test. For instance, we recently tested two Chromebooks separated by only $50 in price, but over 5 hours of estimated battery life!

Whether a consumer’s ultimate purchasing decision is based on price, specs, or a combination of factors, there are few things more valuable to buyers than reliable facts about performance and battery life. Benchmarking is ultimately about gaining useful data for decision making, and that’s why we’re excited about the value that CrXPRT will bring to the Chromebook discussion!

Justin

Comment on this post in the forums

Posted in Chrome OS, CrXPRT, Google Chrome, Performance of computing devices, What makes a good benchmark? |

Seeing the whole picture

By Justin Greene

on August 21, 2014

In past posts, we’ve discussed how people tend to focus on hardware differences when comparing performance or battery life scores between systems, but software factors such as OS version, choice of browser, and background activity often influence benchmark results on multiple levels.

For example, AnandTech recently published an article explaining how a decision by Google Chrome developers to increase Web page rendering times may have introduced a tradeoff between performance and battery life. To increase performance, Chrome asks Windows to use 1ms interrupt timings instead of the default 15.6ms timing. Unlike other applications that wait for the default timing, Chrome ends up getting its work done more often.

The tradeoff for that increased performance is that waking up the OS more frequently can diminish the effectiveness of a system’s innate power-saving attributes, such as a tick-less kernel and timer coalescing in Windows 8, or efficiency innovations in a new chip architecture. In this case, because of the OS-level interactions between Chrome and Windows, a faster browser could end up having a greater impact on battery life than might initially be suspected.

The article discusses the limitations of their test in detail, specifically with regards to Chrome 36 not being able to natively support the same HiDPI resolution as the other browsers, but the point we’re drawing out here is that accurate testing involves taking all relevant factors into consideration. People are used to the idea that changing browsers may impact Web performance, but not so much is said about a browser’s impact on battery life.

Justin

Comment on this post in the forums

Posted in Battery life, Benchmark metrics, Google Chrome, Performance benchmarking, Windows 8 |

Something shiny

By Eric Hale

on May 22, 2014

As I mentioned in Looking for the next big thing, we’ve received some ideas for benchmarks recently. While there were several good ideas, the one that rose to the top of the list was a benchmark for Chrome-based devices.

For the past year or so, Chromebooks have been the fastest-growing segment of the PC market, so there’s a lot of interest. Given the rising profile of Chromebooks, a Chrome OS benchmark seems like a good fit with the existing XPRTs.

We’ve just started batting around ideas about what a Chrome OS benchmark might look like. Because the browser is the interface, WebXPRT is the natural place to start. However, WebXPRT runs on all platforms. We would like a Chrome benchmark to consider Chrome‑specific technologies like Google Native Client. If possible, it would also be great to get the battery life as well as performance.

Those are a few of our ideas. Do you have ideas about what you would like to see in a Chrome OS benchmark? If so, what would you consider most important for it to include? Let us know at benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com!

And remember, we’re always looking for new ideas. If there’s a benchmark you’d love to see, let us know.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Posted in Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, Google Chrome, WebXPRT, What makes a good benchmark? |

Category: Google Chrome

What do you think when you hear “Chromebook”?

Seeing the whole picture

Something shiny

Check out the other XPRTs: