BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: WebXPRT

More on the way for the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight

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

The value of speed

I was reading an interesting article on how high-end smartphones like the iPhone X, Pixel 2 XL, and Galaxy S8 generate more money from in-game revenue than cheaper phones do.

One line stood out to me: “With smartphones becoming faster, larger and more capable of delivering an engaging gaming experience, these monetization key performance indicators (KPIs) have begun to increase significantly.”

It turns out the game companies totally agree with the rest of us that faster devices are better!

Regardless of who is seeking better performance—consumers or game companies—the obvious question is how you determine which models are fastest. Many folks rely on device vendors’ claims about how much faster the new model is. Unfortunately, the vendors’ claims don’t always specify on what they base the claims. Even when they do, it’s hard to know whether the numbers are accurate and applicable to how you use your device.

The key part of any answer is performance tools that are representative, dependable, and open.

  • Representative – Performance tools need to have realistic workloads that do things that you care about.
  • Dependable – Good performance tools run reliably and produce repeatable results, both of which require that significant work go into their development and testing.
  • Open – Performance tools that allow people to access the source code, and even contribute to it, keep things above the table and reassure you that you can rely on the results.

Our goal with the XPRTs is to provide performance tools that meet all these criteria. WebXPRT 3 and all our other XPRTs exist to help accurately reveal how devices perform. You can run them yourself or rely on the wealth of results that we and others have collected on a wide array of devices.

The best thing about good performance tools is that everyone, even vendors, can use them. I sincerely hope that you find the XPRTs helpful when you make your next technology purchase.

Bill

The WebXPRT 3 source code is now available

We’re excited to announce that the WebXPRT 3 source code is now available to BenchmarkXPRT Development Community members!

Download the WebXPRT 3 source here (login required).

We’ve also posted a download link on the WebXPRT tab in the Members’ Area. The source code package contains instructions for setting up and configuring a local instance of WebXPRT for those who wish to do so.

As part of our community model for software development, source code for each of the XPRTs is available to anyone who joins the community. If you’d like to review XPRT source code, but haven’t yet joined the community, we encourage you to join! Registration is quick and easy, and if you work for a company or organization with an interest in benchmarking, you can join the community for free. Simply fill out the form with your company e-mail address and select the option to be considered for a free membership. We’ll contact you to verify the address and then activate your membership.

If you have any other questions about community membership or XPRT source code, feel free to contact us. We look forward to hearing from you!

Justin

The XPRTs in action

In the near future, we’ll update our “XPRTs around the world” infographic, which provides a snapshot of how people are using the XPRTs worldwide. Among other stats, we include the number of XPRT web mentions, articles, and reviews that have appeared during a given period. Recently, we learned how one of those statistics—a single web site mention of WebXPRT—found its way to consumers in more places than we would have imagined.

Late last month, AnandTech published a performance comparison by Andrei Frumusanu examining the Samsung Galaxy S9’s Snapdragon 845 and Exynos 9810 variants and a number of other high-end phones. WebXPRT was one of the benchmarking tools used. The article stated that both versions of the brand-new S9 were slower than the iPhone X and, in some tests, were slower than even the iPhone 7.

A CNET video discussed the article and the role of WebXPRT in the performance comparison, and the article has been reposted to hundreds of tech media sites around the world. A quick survey shows reposts in Albania, Bulgaria, Denmark, Chile, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Italy Japan, Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Slovakia, Turkey, and many other countries.

The popularity of the article is not surprising, for it positions the newest flagship phones from the industry’s two largest phone makers in a head-to-head comparison with a somewhat unexpected outcome. AnandTech did nothing to stir controversy or sensationalize the test results, but simply provided readers with an objective, balanced assessment of how these devices compare so that they could draw their own conclusions. The XPRTs share this approach.

We’re grateful to Andrei and others at AnandTech who’ve used the XPRTs over the years to produce content that helps consumers make informed decisions. WebXPRT is just part of AnandTech’s toolkit, but it’s one that’s accessible to anybody free of charge. With the help of BenchmarkXPRT Development Community members, we’ll continue to publish XPRT tools that help users everywhere gain valuable insight into device performance.

Justin

Just before showtime

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

WebXPRT 3 is here!

We’re excited to announce that WebXPRT 3 is now available to the public. BenchmarkXPRT Development Community members have been using a community preview for several weeks, but now anyone can run WebXPRT 3 and publish their results.

As we mentioned on the blog, WebXPRT 3 has a completely new UI, updated workloads, and new test content. We carried over several features from WebXPRT 2015 including automation, the option to run individual workloads, and language options for English, German, and Simplified Chinese.

We believe WebXPRT 3 will be as relevant and reliable as WebXPRT 2013 and 2015. After trying it out, please submit your scores and feel free to let us know what you think. We look forward to seeing new results submissions!

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?