BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: WebXPRT

Our baby has a new name!

The upcoming Android benchmark will be called MobileXPRT. Thanks to everyone who sent in suggestions. We are testing development builds now and look forward to having a community preview available in the next few weeks.

In other news, the developer license used to build TouchXPRT expired this week. We have created a new version to fix this problem. If you are a TouchXPRT user, you’ll need to download the new version for any future testing. You can find the details here.

As we mentioned in the post Three names, two hosts, we set up a second WebXPRT hosting site to see if that would improve the slow downloads reported in China. To help us better understand the situation, we are going to start logging IP addresses for the host at http://54.251.252.204/webxprt/. We are doing this to see if there are regional differences in the download time. This change does not affect users of WebXPRT at http://www.principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/webxprt/. Neither host will gather personally identifying information.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Extreme makeover

Last week, we unveiled redesigned Web pages for BenchmarkXPRT. We’ve been working on this redesign for a while. We think you’ll find the pages to be a lot sleeker and more attractive. The HDXPRT page, for example, is far less cluttered and easier to navigate. There’s a new white papers page. The members’ area has a new tabbed design that will let you access the member resources for any benchmark form a single page.

We will be redesigning the blog and forums over the next few weeks. Log into the forum or send an e-mail to benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com and tell us what you think about the new design!

As we mentioned in the blog post What a week!, WebXPRT does not collect any personally identifying information. (The WebXPRT data collection page details all the information the benchmark collects.) The benchmark does not attempt to verify that the user agent string is correct under the assumption that the user or browser had some reason for setting it the way it is.

This has caused some people to be confused when, for example, the results for a phone running the stock Android browser say that the phone used Safari. Most modern browsers have the ability to change the user agent string and misidentify themselves, as that version of the Android browser did by default. In fact, you can usually override the browser’s default, should you want to. For example, Google Chrome version 26.0, the version I’m using right now, allows you to choose from multiple versions of IE, Firefox, Chrome, iPhone, iPad, Android, and others. You can even type in a custom string.

So, if you think WebXPRT misidentified your browser, it’s worth checking the user agent string. The instructions for doing this vary by browser, but are usually pretty straightforward. If you’re curious about why browsers offer this feature, you can search for “user agent spoofing” to find explanations of the pros and cons.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Three names, two hosts

As Bill mentioned a couple of weeks ago in The Name Game, we’ve been considering changing the name of PhoneXPRT. The rationale for this is that the tests in PhoneXPRT are useful for a range of devices, from phones to tablets. We asked for your opinions about the name. After getting your input and talking amongst ourselves, we are considering three possibilities:

  • Leaving the name unchanged.
  • Changing the name to MobileXPRT. While this would convey the scope of the benchmark, some people thought the name might be too general.
  • Changing the name to TouchXPRT for Android. While there is some similarity between the tests in TouchXPRT and the ones we are developing for this benchmark, the two benchmarks would not initially be comparable.

Let us know what you think. We hope to settle the name question soon.

As we mentioned in Loose Ends, some users in mainland China are reporting extremely slow download times when running WebXPRT. We have set up a trial host for WebXPRT in Singapore to see if this improves the situation. Preliminary, US-based tests have seen no significant difference in scores when running from the Singapore host.

If you are in China and want to try running WebXPRT from the new host, you will find it at http://54.251.252.204/webxprt/. Please let us know your experience.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

No one knows who first said “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” but it’s easy to understand why they said it. It’s no surprise that the bestselling statistics book in history is titled How to Lie with Statistics. While the title is facetious, it is certainly true that statistics can be confusing—consider the word “average,” which can refer to the mean, median, or mode. “Mean average,” in turn, can refer to the arithmetic mean, the geometric mean, or the harmonic mean. It’s enough to make a non-statistician’s head spin.

In fact, a number of people have been confused by the confidence interval WebXPRT reports. We believe that the best way to stand behind your results is to be completely open about how you crunch the numbers. To this end, we released the white paper WebXPRT 2013 results calculation and confidence interval this past Monday.

This white paper, which does not require a background in mathematics, explains what the WebXPRT confidence interval is and how it differs from the benchmark variability we sometimes talk about. The paper also gives an overview of the statistical and mathematical techniques WebXPRT uses to translate the raw timing numbers into results.

Because sometimes the devil is in the details, we wanted to augment our overview by showing exactly how WebXPRT calculates results. The white paper is accompanied by a spreadsheet that reproduces the calculations WebXPRT uses. If you are mathematically inclined and would like to suggest improvements to the process, by all means let us know!

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Loose ends

As we mentioned last week, the Samsung debuted the Galaxy S4 this past week. It seems to have hit all the expectations – including eye-scrolling. Looking at the reviews, it’s somewhere between the greatest phone ever made and something not quite as good as the iPhone. I’m looking forward to seeing one for myself and hoping someone submits a WebXPRT score for it soon.

We’ll be releasing the HDXPRT 2013 design document tomorrow. As we’ve said, the number one comment has been that HDXPRT 2012 is too big and takes too long to run. We have put a lot of thought into how to trim HDXPRT 2013 and still keep the essential value of the benchmark. We’ve also received some other good feedback that we’re incorporating, such as making installing and running HDXPRT scriptable.

We’ve been doing some investigation during the RFC period, and we’ve encountered problems scripting some of the applications, notably iTunes and PowerDirector. We’re working to overcome these problems but if they prove to be insurmountable, we might have to change the list of applications.

Again, thanks to everyone who commented on the HDXPRT 2013 RFC.

We’ve learned that some WebXPRT users in mainland China are having problems with very slow downloads. The good news is that results from the runs are valid. However, we understand that this is frustrating and are investigating solutions. If you are in China and have experienced slow downloads, please send an e-mail to benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com. We would like your help in evaluating any solutions we come up with.

Speaking of WebXPRT, over the next few weeks we’ll be releasing several white papers that look at WebXPRT results in more depth. The first paper will explain the WebXPRT confidence interval and how it relates to run to run variability, which has been confusing to a number of people. The second paper will look at the effect on the browser on WebXPRT scores. The third paper will look at the influence of the operating system.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Soon, we’ll know the truth

I’m writing this on the morning of one of the most anticipated events in tech, Samsung’s rollout of the new Galaxy S4 phone.  There have been many leaks, and it will be interesting to see how many are true. One feature generating buzz would let you scroll just by moving your eyes. Samsung filed for the patent, but there are conflicting reports about whether eye scrolling made it into the Galaxy S4.

The leaked reports say that the U.S. version of the Galaxy S4 will use Qualcomm Inc.’s quad-core chip, while versions for other markets will use Samsung’s Exynos 5 Octa-core chip. As we continue development of PhoneXPRT, I will be very interested to see how the different processors stack up performance wise.

For browser-level performance, WebXPRT 2013 is available today. If you get a new Galaxy S4, try out WebXPRT 2013 on it.  As it says on the WebXPRT.com page, your run is confidential. However, anyone who shares a Galaxy S4 score in the next week gets a free t-shirt (until they are gone). You can tag BenchmarkXPRT on a Facebook post, use the hashtag #WebXPRT on Twitter, or email us at BenchmarkXPRTsupport@principledtechnologies.com.

In other news, the HDXPRT 2013 comment period has ended and we’re working on the design document.  We’ll be sharing that with the community next week. If you have comments you haven’t sent in, please do so, and we’ll try to address them in the design document.

Eric

Comment on this post in the forums

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?