BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Performance benchmarking

Investigating a possible issue with WebXPRT 4 in iOS 17

Yesterday, Apple revealed the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro at its annual fall event, along with a new version of the iOS mobile operating system (iOS 17). The official iOS 17 launch will take place on September 18th, but before then, users of newer iPhones can install the OS via the Apple Beta Software Program.

Today, a tech journalist informed us that during their testing of iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro with iOS 17 Beta models, WebXPRT 4 has been freezing while running the Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan workload in the Safari 17 browser. Here in the lab, we were able to immediately replicate the issue on an iPhone 12 Pro with iOS 17 Beta model.

Our initial troubleshooting confirmed that WebXPRT 3 successfully runs to completion on iOS 17 Beta, so it appears that the problem is specific to WebXPRT 4. We also confirmed that WebXPRT 4 freezes at the same place when running in the Google Chrome browser on iOS 17 Beta, so we know that the problem does not occur only in Safari.

We’re currently investigating the issue, and will publish our findings here in the blog as soon as we feel confident that we’ve identified both the root cause and a workable solution, if a solution is necessary. One reason a solution would not be necessary is that the issue is a bug on the iOS 17 Beta side that Apple will resolve before the official launch.

We apologize for any inconvenience this issue might cause for tech reviewers and iPhone users, and we appreciate your patience while we figure out what’s going on. If you have any questions about WebXPRT 4, please don’t hesitate to ask!

Justin

A note about CrXPRT 2

Recent visitors to CrXPRT.com may have seen a notice that encourages visitors to use WebXPRT 4 instead of CrXPRT 2 for performance testing on high-end Chromebooks. The notice reads as follows:

NOTE: Chromebook technology has progressed rapidly since we released CrXPRT 2, and we’ve received reports that some CrXPRT 2 workloads may not stress top-bin Chromebook processors enough to give the necessary accuracy for users to compare their performance. So, for the latest test to compare the performance of high-end Chromebooks, we recommend using WebXPRT 4.

We made this recommendation because of the evident limitations of the CrXPRT 2 performance workloads when testing newer high-end hardware. CrXPRT 2 itself is not that old (2020), but when we created the CrXPRT 2 performance workloads, we started with a core framework of CrXPRT 2015 performance workloads. In a similar way, we built the CrXPRT 2015 workloads on a foundation of WebXPRT 2015 workloads. At the time, the harness and workload structures we used to ensure WebXPRT 2015’s cross-browser capabilities provided an excellent foundation that we could adapt for our new ChromeOS benchmark. Consequently, CrXPRT 2 is a close developmental descendant of WebXPRT 2015. Some of the legacy WebXPRT 2015/CrXPRT 2 workloads do not stress current high-end processors—a limitation that prevents effective performance testing differentiation—nor do they engage the latest web technologies.

In the past, the Chromebook market skewed heavily toward low-cost devices with down-bin, inexpensive processors, making this limitation less of an issue. Now, however, more Chromebooks offer top-bin processors on par with traditional laptops and workstations. Because of the limitations of the CrXPRT 2 workloads, we now recommend WebXPRT 4 for both cross-browser and ChromeOS performance testing on the latest high-end Chromebooks. WebXPRT 4 includes updated test content, newer JavaScript tools and libraries, modern WebAssembly workloads, and additional Web Workers tasks that cover a wide range of performance requirements.

While CrXPRT 2 continues to function as a capable performance and battery life comparison test for many ChromeOS devices, WebXPRT 4 is a more appropriate tool to use with new high-end devices. If you haven’t yet used WebXPRT 4 for Chromebook comparison testing, we encourage you to give it a try!

If you have any questions or concerns about CrXPRT 2 or WebXPRT 4, please don’t hesitate to ask!

Justin

The XPRTs are a great back-to-school shopping resource

Students of all ages will be starting a new school year over the next few weeks, and many learners will be shopping for tech devices that can help them excel in their studies. The tech marketplace can be confusing, and competing claims can be hard to navigate. The XPRTs are here to help! Whether you’re shopping for a new laptop, desktop, Chromebook, tablet, or phone, the XPRTs can provide reliable, industry-trusted performance scores that can cut through all the noise.

A good place to start looking for scores is the WebXPRT 4 results viewer. The viewer displays WebXPRT 4 scores from almost 500 devices—including many hot new releases—and we’re adding new scores all the time. To learn more about the viewer’s capabilities and how you can use it to compare devices, check out this blog post.

Another resource we offer is the XPRT results browser. The browser is the most efficient way to access the XPRT results database, which currently holds more than 3,400 test results from over 140 sources, including major tech review publications around the world, OEMs, and independent testers. It offers a wealth of current and historical performance data across all of the XPRT benchmarks and hundreds of devices. You can read more about how to use the results browser here.

Also, if you’re considering a popular device, chances are good that a recent tech review includes an XPRT score for that device. Two quick ways to find these reviews: (1) go to your favorite tech review site and search for “XPRT” and (2) go to a search engine and enter the device name and XPRT name (e.g. “Lenovo ThinkPad” and “WebXPRT”). Here are a few recent tech reviews that use one of the XPRTs to evaluate a popular device:

The XPRTs can help back-to-school shoppers make better-informed and more confident tech purchases. As this school year begins, we hope you’ll find the data you need on our site or in an XPRT-related tech review. If you have any questions about the XPRTs, XPRT scores, or the results database please feel free to ask!

Justin

Check out the WebXPRT 4 results viewer

New visitors to our site may not be aware of the WebXPRT 4 results viewer and how to use it. The viewer provides WebXPRT 4 users with an interactive, information-packed way to browse test results that is not available for earlier versions of the benchmark. With the viewer, users can explore all of the PT-curated results that we’ve published on WebXPRT.com, find more detailed information about those results, and compare results from different devices. The viewer currently displays over 460 results, and we add new entries each week.

The screenshot below shows the tool’s default display. Each vertical bar in the graph represents the overall score of a single test result, with bars arranged from lowest to highest. To view a single result in detail, the user hovers over a bar until it turns white and a small popup window displays the basic details of the result. If the user clicks to select the highlighted bar, the bar turns dark blue, and the dark blue banner at the bottom of the viewer displays additional details about that result.

In the example above, the banner shows the overall score (227), the score’s percentile rank (66th) among the scores in the current display, the name of the test device, and basic hardware disclosure information. If the source of the result is PT, users can click the Run info button to see the run’s individual workload scores. If the source is an external publisher, users can click the Source link to navigate to the original site.

The viewer includes a drop-down menu that lets users quickly filter results by major device type categories, and a tab that with additional filtering options, such as browser type, processor vendor, and result source. The screenshot below shows the viewer after I used the device type drop-down filter to select only desktops.

The screenshot below shows the viewer as I use the filter tab to explore additional filter options, such processor vendor.

The viewer also lets users pin multiple specific runs, which is helpful for making side-by-side comparisons. The screenshot below shows the viewer after I pinned four runs and viewed them on the Pinned runs screen.

The screenshot below shows the viewer after I clicked the Compare runs button. The overall and individual workload scores of the pinned runs appear in a table.

We’re excited about the WebXPRT 4 results viewer, and we want to hear your feedback. Are there features you’d really like to see, or ways we can improve the viewer? Please let us know, and send us your latest test results!

Justin

How we evaluate new WebXPRT workload proposals

A key value of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community is our openness to user feedback. Whether it’s positive feedback about our benchmarks, constructive criticism, ideas for completely new benchmarks, or proposed workload scenarios for existing benchmarks, we appreciate your input and give it serious consideration.

We’re currently accepting ideas and suggestions for ways we can improve WebXPRT 4. We are open to adding both non-workload features and new auxiliary tests, which can be experimental or targeted workloads that run separately from the main test and produce their own scores. You can read more about experimental WebXPRT 4 workloads here. However, a recent user question about possible WebGPU workloads has prompted us to explain the types of parameters that we consider when we evaluate a new WebXPRT workload proposal.

Community interest and real-life relevance

The first two parameters we use when evaluating a WebXPRT workload proposal are straightforward: are people interested in the workload and is it relevant to real life? We originally developed WebXPRT to evaluate device performance using the types of web-based tasks that people are likely to encounter daily, and real-life relevancy continues to be an important criterion for us during development. There are many technologies, functions, and use cases that we could test in a web environment, but only some of them are both relevant to common applications or usage patterns and likely to be interesting to lab testers and tech reviewers.

Maximum cross-platform support

Currently, WebXPRT runs in almost any web browser, on almost any device that has a web browser, and we would ideally maintain that broad level of cross-platform support when introducing new workloads. However, technical differences in the ways that different browsers execute tasks mean that some types of scenarios would be impossible to include without breaking our cross-platform commitment.

One reason that we’re considering auxiliary workloads with WebXPRT, e.g., a battery life rundown, is that those workloads would allow WebXPRT to offer additional value to users while maintaining the cross-platform nature of the main test. Even if a battery life test ran on only one major browser, it could still be very useful to many people.

Performance differentiation

Computer benchmarks such as the XPRTs exist to provide users with reliable metrics that they can use to gauge how well target platforms or technologies perform certain tasks. With a broadly targeted benchmark such as WebXPRT, if the workloads are so heavy that most devices can’t handle them, or so light that most devices complete them without being taxed, the results will have little to no use for OEM labs, the tech press, or independent users when evaluating devices or making purchasing decisions.

Consequently, with any new WebXPRT workload, we try to find a sweet spot in terms of how demanding it is. We want it to run on a wide range of devices—from low-end devices that are several years old to brand-new high-end devices and everything in between. We also want users to see a wide range of workload scores and resulting overall scores, so they can easily grasp the different performance capabilities of the devices under test.

Consistency and replicability

Finally, workloads should produce scores that consistently fall within an acceptable margin of error, and are easily to replicate with additional testing or comparable gear. Some web technologies are very sensitive to uncontrollable or unpredictable variables, such as internet speed. A workload that measures one of those technologies would be unlikely to produce results that are consistent and easily replicated.

We hope this post will be useful for folks who are contemplating potential new WebXPRT workloads. If you have any general thoughts about browser performance testing, or specific workload ideas that you’d like us to consider, please let us know.

Justin

WebXPRT’s mirror host site in Singapore

If you’ve ever spent time exploring WebXPRT.com, you may have noticed a line that says, “If you are in East Asia, you can run WebXPRT from our Singapore host,” followed by a hyperlink with Simplified Chinese characters. We realize that some people may not know why we have a WebXPRT mirror host site in Singapore—or how to use it—so today’s post will cover the basics.

When we first released WebXPRT 2013, some users in mainland China reported slow download times when running the benchmark. These slowdowns affected initial page and workload content load times, but not workload execution, which happens locally. As a result, subtest and overall scores were still consistent with expectations for the devices under test, but it took longer than normal for test runs to complete. In response, we set up a mirror host site in Singapore to facilitate WebXPRT testing in China and other East Asian countries. We continued this practice with subsequent WebXPRT versions, and currently offer Singapore-based instances of WebXPRT 4WebXPRT 3, and WebXPRT 2015.

The link to WebXPRT 4 Singapore on WebXPRT.com

The default UI language on the Singapore site is Simplified Chinese, but users can opt to change the language to English or German. Apart from a different default language, the WebXPRT mirror instances hosted in Singapore are identical to the instances on the main WebXPRT site. If you test a device on WebXPRT Singapore and WebXPRT.com, you should see similar performance scores from both sites.

The start page for WebXPRT 4 Singapore, with the default Simplified Chinese UI

We hope that the WebXPRT mirror host site in Singapore will make it easier for people in East Asia to use the benchmark. Do you find the site useful? If so, we’d love to hear from you! Also, if you encounter any unexpected issues or interruptions while testing, please let us know!

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?