Last week, we discussed the upcoming Windows 11 GA launch on October 5, and our hope is that the transition period from Windows 10 to Windows 11 will go smoothly for the three XPRTs that run on Windows 10, HDXPRT 4, TouchXPRT 2016, and AIXPRT. We’re happy to report that so far, we’ve been able to install HDXPRT 4 and TouchXPRT 2016 on the latest stable preview of Windows 11 without any problems. For TouchXPRT 2016, we successfully installed the benchmark using both available methods—directly from the Microsoft Store and through the manual sideload process—and ran it without issues.
We’re
still testing Windows 11 compatibility with the AIXPRT OpenVINO, TensorFlow,
and TensorRT test packages, and will share our findings here in the blog as
soon as possible. Also, because Microsoft might still publish through the
stable preview channel Windows 11 changes that interfere with the HDXPRT 4 or
TouchXPRT 2016 installation or testing processes, we’ll continue to verify each
benchmark’s Windows 11 compatibility up through and beyond launch day.
If
you’re conducting your own HDXPRT 4, TouchXPRT 2016, or AIXPRT testing on the
Windows 11 beta, you could encounter issues with newly published updates before
we do due to the timing of our update cycles. You could also run into problems
that are specific to your test gear. In either case, please don’t assume that
we already know about the problem. Let us know!
Last
week, Microsoft announced
that the Windows 11 GA build will officially launch Tuesday October 5, earlier
than the initial late 2021 estimate. The update will start rolling out with
select new laptops and existing Windows 10 PCs that satisfy specific system requirements,
and only some Windows 10 PCs will be eligible for the update right away.
Through a phased Windows Update process, additional Windows 10 PCs will be able
to access the update throughout the first half of 2022.
Between
the phased Windows 11 rollout and the pledge
Microsoft has made to continue Windows 10 support through October 2025, it will
likely be a while before the majority of Windows users transition to the new version.
We hope the transition period will go smoothly for the XPRTs. However, because we
designed three of our benchmarks to run on Windows 10 (HDXPRT 4,
TouchXPRT 2016,
and AIXPRT),
we might encounter compatibility issues with Windows 11.
Over
the coming weeks, we’ll be testing HDXPRT 4, TouchXPRT 2016, and AIXPRT on beta
versions of Windows 11, and we’ll test again after the GA launch. In addition
to obvious compatibility issues and test failures, we’ll note any changes we
need to make to our documentation to account for differences in the Windows 11
installation or test processes.
We hope that testers will be able to successfully use all three benchmarks on both OS versions throughout the transition process. If problems arise, we will keep our blog readers informed while exploring solutions. As always, we’re also open to feedback from the community, so if you are participating in the Windows Insider Program and have encountered Windows 11 beta compatibility issues with any of the Windows-focused XPRTs, please let us know!
One
of our goals during the ongoing WebXPRT 4 development process is to be as
responsive as possible to user feedback, and we want to emphasize that it’s not
too late to send us your ideas. Until we finalize the details for each workload
and complete the code work for the preview build, we still have quite a bit of
flexibility around adding new features.
Just
this week, a community member raised the possibility of a WebXPRT 4 feature that
would enable user-specific test ID numbers or accounts. One possible implementation
of the idea would allow a user to sign up for a WebXPRT test account as an
individual or on behalf of their organization. The test accounts would be both
free and optional; you could continue to run the benchmark without an account,
but running it with an account would let you save and view your test history. Another
implementation option we are considering would let users generate a permanent
user ID number for themselves or their organization. They could then use that
number to tag and search for their automated test runs in our database, without
having to log into an account.
Our biggest question at the moment is whether our user base would be interested in WebXPRT user accounts or test IDs. If this concept piques your interest, or you have suggestions for implementation, please let us know!
Recently,
CloudXPRT testers have reported installation failures while attempting to set
up CloudXPRT on Ubuntu virtual machines with Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and
Microsoft Azure. We have not yet determined whether the installation process
fails consistently on these VMs or the problem occurs under only specific
conditions. We believe these failures occur with only GCP and Azure, and you should
still be able to successfully install and run CloudXPRT on both Amazon Web
Services virtual machines and on-premises gear.
We
apologize for the inconvenience that this issue causes for CloudXPRT testers
and will let the community know as soon as we identify a reliable solution. If
you have encountered any other issues during CloudXPRT testing, please feel
free to contact us!
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!
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!
Cookie Notice: Our website uses cookies to deliver a smooth experience by storing logins and saving user information. By continuing to use our site, you agree with our usage of cookies as our privacy policy outlines.
