BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: WebXPRT

It’s the same phone

A friend of mine thought there was something wrong with her phone. The reason? Her WebXPRT score was a lot lower than the score we published on the WebXPRT Web site.

From the frequency with which she posts on Facebook, I guessed she had the Facebook app running on her phone. So I asked if she had installed any apps on her phone since she bought it. She said “a few,” and I suggested we try turning some of them off.

Sometimes “a few” means “a lot.”

Anyway, after we turned a bunch of the apps off, her score jumped to over 90 percent of the published score. That made her happy, but she wanted to know why the apps would affect her score because “it’s the same phone.” I asked if she would expect her car to get the same gas mileage if it were carrying a bunch of cinderblocks. “Of course not,” she said, quickly understanding the metaphor. Asking your phone to do other things during the test is going to put a drag on the system.

It’s important to remember that benchmarking can be a pretty specialized area. As the popularity of the XPRTs grows, they are being run more often by bright, well educated people who don’t understand benchmarking basics. For this reason, we’re putting a lot of effort into automating best practices where we can, and guiding people when necessary.

Have the XPRTs ever confused you? If so, e-mail us at benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com. We can use your input.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

The Microsoft Surface 2

As soon as the Microsoft Surface 2 became available, we got one and have been putting it through its paces. Of course, we ran WebXPRT and TouchXPRT. The results are on the TouchXPRT and WebXPRT sites, but I’ll repeat them here along with the results for its predecessor, the Microsoft Surface RT.

TouchXPRT WebXPRT
Surface RT

98

167

Surface 2

284

324

TouchXPRT shows the Surface 2 to be almost three times faster than the Microsoft Surface RT, while WebXPRT shows it to be almost twice as fast.

Why the difference? The most obvious explanation is that WebXPRT depends on the browser and its implementations of JavaScript and HTML5. TouchXPRT relies less on additional software and seems to take better advantage of the underlying hardware.

While we have yet to test the Intel Core i5-based Microsoft Surface Pro 2 ourselves, others have been doing so. Interestingly, Anandtech’s review of the Surface Pro 2 included WebXPRT results from both Chrome and IE. The Chrome result was over 30 percent higher than the IE result: 1,260 vs. 960. Unfortunately, Google has not made Chrome available for the ARM-based Surface 2, so we were not able to make that comparison.

As always, please let us know any results you get on any new hardware so we can get as many results as possible in our result databases. There are lots of new products coming out in the next few weeks and we’d love your help in getting results for as many of them as possible. Thanks!

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Look how we’ve grown!

We talk a lot about the community model, but perhaps not enough about the community itself. I was looking at our growth over the past few months, and struck by how far we have come this year.  We don’t reveal our members’ personal information, but I would like to share some statistics with you.

The community has grown by over 40 percent in 2013. Members are affiliated with 49 organizations, representing chip makers, OEMs, software vendors, and the press. Some members work outside technology, in fields such as engineering, finance, and communications.

Back in April, we blogged about setting up a second WebXPRT host to help with download speeds in China, so it’s no surprise that the community has also spread across the world. Because we don’t require detailed information from community members, I don’t know how many countries are represented. However, the members with whom I’ve had personal contact come from at least four continents.

Thanks to all our community members for making it a great year so far. If you’ve not joined yet, now is a great time. Remember that members see the previews of the benchmarks, and the 2014 versions are coming.

Here’s looking forward to greater growth in the future.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Interesting questions

We’ve had a couple of interesting questions about WebXPRT this week.

The first question was about the Face detect test in WebXPRT. One person, having noticed that changing the version of Firefox affected the WebXPRT score on a particular device, asked whether the test used the JavaScript Canvas element. The answer is yes, the Face detection test does use the Canvas element. It is based on the JavaScript library by Dr. Liu Liu.

As we have discussed in the past, the software stack on a device affects the benchmark scores. WebXPRT is a HTML5 benchmark and uses elements in the HTML5 specification, such as Canvas. Browsers implement HTML in their JavaScript engines, whose performance depends on the OS and the underlying platform.  So, WebXPRT scores are influenced by the browser and OS, as well as the platform.

The second question was whether it is possible to run WebXPRT without an Internet connection. Generally speaking, the answer to that is no. WebXPRT is a hosted application, and to run the official version, you must be able to connect to the WebXPRT servers.

However, community members can download the WebXPRT source and configure local servers that will run WebXPRT, if they desire. Note: As we discussed in Sources, any published results must be from the version hosted at webxprt.com.

Thanks for the questions and keep experimenting!

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Sources

If you’ve checked out the MobileXPRT and WebXPRT pages recently, you’ve probably noticed that the number of results has started to grow. The results are coming from three sources:

  • Internal testing at PT.
  • Results submitted by the public.
  • Results published on the Web. We link back to the source from these results. Results published on-line include results in reports PT publishes for clients and reviews by other parties.

While we are excited about the growing number of results, we do sanity check them. We compare the results with other runs for the same device when available, or with similar devices if not.

The source code for the benchmarks is available, and we encourage experimentation. However, it should go without saying that valid runs must come from the builds of the benchmarks the development community has published. We can’t compare two results generated by different builds.

That being said, if you change the code and get an interesting result, by all means do contact us. You may have discovered something that we’ll want to include in a future version

Keep the results coming and keep experimenting!

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Endurance

In There’s always something new to measure, we proposed several possible tests for the next version of WebXPRT. Of those, battery life testing generated the most interest.

Battery life testing poses a number of challenges. It’s not as simple as making WebXPRT loop. The biggest challenge is that different devices take different measures when the battery runs low. These measures range from dimming the screen, to stopping the hard disk, to totally shutting down the device. While these are perfectly reasonable, they are out of the benchmark’s control. Worse, most current browsers offer no way of knowing that these measures even happen nor do they offer good ways of querying the device to find out the state of its battery. We want to make sure that our approach does not unfairly advantage one device over another and gives a fair and accurate measure.

Because WebXPRT is a hosted application, we are looking at one of the other XPRT benchmarks for our first attempt at adding battery life to an existing benchmark. MobileXPRT seems to be the best fit. It runs on Android, which has a functional API for monitoring and managing power events, and the diversity of the Android ecosystem forces the benchmark to deal with a greater range of devices and OS configurations than TouchXPRT.

We are trying a number of approaches, and we have made some progress. We will discuss what we have learned in the next few weeks.

Our hope is that what we learn from MobileXPRT will better equip us to add battery life testing to WebXPRT.

Have any thoughts or comments? Post to the forums or e-mail benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com to let us know.

-Bill

Comment on this post in the forums

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?