Category: results

A potential fix for the CrXPRT 2 battery life test error

on September 30, 2021

For the past few months, we’ve been recommending that CrXPRT 2 testers not use the battery life test until we find a solution to a recurring error on Chrome v89.x and later. The error prevents the test from completing and producing a battery life estimate. Sometimes, the CrXPRT battery life test stops running after only a few workload iterations, while at other times, it almost reaches completion before producing the error.

We are cautiously optimistic that we’ve identified both the problem and a potential fix. We believe the problem stems from fluctuations in the time it takes the benchmark to communicate with Chrome to collect and store battery life information. While we haven’t identified the root cause of the fluctuations, adjusting the CrXPRT code to make it less sensitive to the fluctuations appears to be an effective fix. We have incorporated those adjustments into an updated, unpublished version of the app package, and we can now complete CrXPRT 2 battery life tests on Chrome v89.x and later with no failures.

We are calling this a potential fix because we’re still testing across several different Chromebook models to ensure consistency. In some testing, the variance in estimated battery life results has been a little higher than we like, so we’re taking time to determine whether that variance is present across all systems or on only specific hardware.

We’d like to apologize once again for the inconvenience that this error is causing CrXPRT 2 testers. As soon as we better understand the viability of the current fix as a long-term update, we’ll let you know!

Justin

Posted in battery life, benchmark, BenchmarkXPRT, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome OS, Chromebooks, CrXPRT, results | Tagged battery life, Chrome, Chrome OS, Chromebooks, CrXPRT, CrXPRT 2 |

Using WebXPRT 3 to compare the performance of popular browsers (Round 3)

By Justin Greene

on August 19, 2021

In November, we published our WebXPRT 3 browser performance comparison, so we decided it was time to see if the performance rankings of popular browsers have changed in the last nine months.

For this round of tests, we used the same laptop as last time: a Dell XPS 13 7930 with an Intel Core i3-10110U processor and 4 GB of RAM running Windows 10 Home, updated to version 1909 (18363.1556). We installed all current Windows updates and tested on a clean system image. After the update process completed, we turned off updates to prevent them from interfering with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 3 three times each on five browsers: Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera. For each browser, the score we post below is the median of the three test runs.

In our last round of tests, the four Chromium-based browsers (Brave, Chrome, Edge, and Opera) produced very close scores, though we saw about a four percent lower score from Brave. In this round of testing, performance improved for all four of the Chromium-based browsers. Chrome, Edge, and Opera still produced very close scores, but Brave’s performance still lagged, this time by about seven percent.

Firefox separated itself from the pack with a much higher score and has been the clear winner in all three rounds of testing. During our second round of testing in November, every browser except for Chrome saw slightly slower performance than the first round. In these latest tests, all the Chromium-based browsers produced significantly higher scores than the second round. When discussing browser performance, it’s important to remember that there are many possible reasons for these performance changes—including changes in browser overhead or changes in Windows—and most users may not notice the changes during everyday tasks.

Do these results mean that Mozilla Firefox will always provide you with a speedier web experience? As we noted in previous comparisons, a device with a higher WebXPRT score will probably feel faster during daily use than one with a lower score. For comparisons on the same system, however, the answer depends on several factors, such as the types of things you do on the web, how the extensions you’ve installed affect performance, how frequently the browsers issue updates and incorporate new web technologies, and how accurately each browser’s default installation settings reflect how you would set up that browser for your daily workflow.

In addition, browser speed can increase or decrease significantly after an update, only to swing back in the other direction shortly thereafter. OS-specific optimizations can also affect performance, such as with Edge on Windows 10 or Chrome on Chrome OS. All these variables are important to keep in mind when considering how browser performance comparison results translate to your everyday experience. Do you have insights you’d like to share from using WebXPRT to compare browser performance? Let us know!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmarking, Browser-based benchmarks, Performance benchmarking, Performance of computing devices, results, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, webxprt 4, Windows 10 |

Improving WebXPRT-related tools and resources

By Justin Greene

on August 5, 2021

As we move forward with the WebXPRT 4 development process, we’re also working on ways to enhance the value of WebXPRT beyond simply updating the benchmark. Our primary goal is to expand and improve the WebXPRT-related tools and resources we offer at WebXPRT.com, starting with a new results viewer.

Currently, users can view WebXPRT results on our site two primary ways, each of which has advantages and limitations.

The first way is the WebXPRT results viewer, which includes hundreds of PT-curated performance scores from a wide range of trusted sources and devices. Users can sort entries by device type, device name, device model, overall score, date of publication, and source. The viewer also includes a free-form filter for quick, targeted searches. While the results viewer contains a wealth of information, it does not give users a way to use graphs or charts for viewing and comparing multiple results at once. Another limitation of the current results viewer is that it offers no easy way for users to access the additional data about the test device and the subtest scores that we have for many entries.

The second way to view WebXPRT results on our site is the WebXPRT Processor Comparison Chart. The chart uses horizontal bar graphs to compare test scores from the hundreds of published results in our database, grouped by processor type. Users can click the average score for a processor to view all the WebXPRT results we currently have for that processor. The visual aspect of the chart and its automated “group by processor type” feature are very useful, but it lacks the sorting and filtering capabilities of the viewer, and navigating to the details of individual tests takes multiple clicks.

In the coming months, we’ll be working to combine the best features of the results viewer and the comparison chart into a single powerful WebXPRT results database tool. We’ll also be investigating ways to add new visual aids, navigation controls, and data-handling capabilities to that tool. We want to provide a tool that helps testers and analysts access the wealth of WebXPRT test information in our database in an efficient, productive, and enjoyable way. If you have ideas or comments about what you’d like to see in a new WebXPRT results viewing tool, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Performance benchmarking, results, results submission, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, webxprt 4, WebXPRT Processor Comparison Chart | Tagged benchmark, results, test results, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 |

We welcome your CloudXPRT results!

By Justin Greene

on July 15, 2021

We recently published a set of CloudXPRT Data Analytics and Web Microservices workload test results submitted by Quanta Computer, Inc. The Quanta submission is the first set of CloudXPRT results that we’ve published using the formal results submission and approval process. We’re grateful to the Quanta team for carefully following the submission guidelines, enabling us to complete the review process without a hitch.

If you are unfamiliar with the process, you can find general information about how we review submissions in a previous blog post. Detailed, step-by-step instructions are available on the results submission page. As a reminder for testers who are considering submitting results for July, the submission deadline is tomorrow, Friday July 16, and the publication date is Friday July 30. We list the submission and publication dates for the rest of 2021 below. Please note that we do not plan to review submissions in December, so if we receive results submissions after November 30, we may not publish them until the end of January 2022.

August

Submission deadline: Tuesday 8/17/21

Publication date: Tuesday 8/31/21

September

Submission deadline: Thursday 9/16/21

Publication date: Thursday 9/30/21

October

Submission deadline: Friday 10/15/21

Publication date: Friday 10/29/21

November

Submission deadline: Tuesday 11/16/21

Publication date: Tuesday 11/30/21

December

Submission deadline: N/A

Publication date: N/A

If you have any questions about the CloudXPRT results submission, review, or publication process, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in BenchmarkXPRT, Cloud, CloudXPRT, Cross-platform benchmarks, data analytics, Datacenter, microservices, Performance benchmarking, results, results submission, Server, Servers, web microservices | Tagged benchmark, cloud, CloudXPRT, data analytics, datacenter, Quanta, results, test results, web microservices |

How to submit WebXPRT results for publication

By Justin Greene

on June 24, 2021

It’s been a while since we last discussed the process for submitting WebXPRT results to be considered for publication in the WebXPRT results browser and the WebXPRT Processor Comparison Chart, so we thought we’d offer a refresher.

Unlike sites that publish all results they receive, we hand-select results from internal lab testing, user submissions, and reliable tech media sources. In each case, we evaluate whether the score is consistent with general expectations. For sources outside of our lab, that evaluation includes confirming that there is enough detailed system information to help us determine whether the score makes sense. We do this for every score on the WebXPRT results page and the general XPRT results page. All WebXPRT results we publish automatically appear in the processor comparison chart as well.

Submitting your score is quick and easy. At the end of the WebXPRT test run, click the Submit your results button below the overall score, complete the short submission form, and click Submit again. The screenshot below shows how the form would look if I submitted a score at the end of a WebXPRT 3 run on my personal system.

After you submit your score, we’ll contact you to confirm how we should display the source. You can choose one of the following:

Your first and last name
“Independent tester” (for those who wish to remain anonymous)
Your company’s name, provided that you have permission to submit the result in their name. To use a company name, we ask that you provide a valid company email address.

We will not publish any additional information about you or your company without your permission.

We look forward to seeing your score submissions, and if you have suggestions for the processor chart or any other aspect of the XPRTs, let us know!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Performance of computing devices, results, results submission, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, WebXPRT Processor Comparison Chart | Tagged browsers, cross-platform, results, results submission, test results, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3 |

Publishing CloudXPRT results from testing on pre-production gear

By Justin Greene

on May 27, 2021

We recently received questions about whether we accept CloudXPRT results submissions from testing on pre-production gear, and how we would handle any differences between results from pre-production and production-level tests.

To answer first question, we are not opposed to pre-production results submissions. We realize that vendors often want to include benchmark results in launch-oriented marketing materials they release before their hardware or software is publicly available. To help them do so, we’re happy to consider pre-production submissions on a case-by-case basis. All such submissions must follow the normal CloudXPRT results submission process, and undergo vetting by the CloudXPRT Results Review Group according to the standard review and publication schedule. If we decide to publish pre-production results on our site, we will clearly note their pre-production status.

In response to the second question, the CloudXPRT Results Review Group will handle any challenges to published results or perceived discrepancies between pre-production and production-level results on a case-by-case basis. We do not currently have a formal process for challenges; anyone who would like to initiate a challenge or express comments or concerns about a result should address the review group via benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com. Our primary concern is always to ensure that published results accurately reflect the performance characteristics of production-level hardware and software. If it becomes necessary to develop more policies in the future, we’ll do so, but we want to keep things as simple as possible.

If you have any questions about the CloudXPRT results submission process, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, BenchmarkXPRT, Cloud, CloudXPRT, Datacenter, results, results submission, Server | Tagged benchmark, BenchmarkXPRT, cloud, CloudXPRT, datacenter, results |

Category: results

A potential fix for the CrXPRT 2 battery life test error

Using WebXPRT 3 to compare the performance of popular browsers (Round 3)

Improving WebXPRT-related tools and resources

We welcome your CloudXPRT results!

How to submit WebXPRT results for publication

Publishing CloudXPRT results from testing on pre-production gear

Check out the other XPRTs: