Month: February 2017

A new reality

on February 23, 2017

A while back, I wrote about a VR demo built by students from North Carolina State University. We’ve been checking it out over the last couple of months and are very impressed. This workload will definitely heat up your device! While the initial results look promising, this is still an experimental workload and it’s too early to use results in formal reviews or product comparisons.

We’ve created a page that tells all about the VR demo. As an experimental workload, the demo is available only to community members. As always, members can download the source as well as the APK.

We asked the students to try to build the workload for iOS as a stretch goal. They successfully built an iOS version, but this was at the end of the semester and there was little time for testing. If you want to experiment with iOS yourself, look at the build instructions for Android and iOS that we include with the source. Note that you will need Xcode to build and deploy the demo on iOS.

After you’ve checked out the workload, let us know what you think!

Finally, we have a new video featuring the VR demo. Enjoy!

Eric

Posted in Application-based benchmarks, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Collaborative benchmark development, Education, Future of performance evaluation, Mobile devices, North Carolina State University, Virtual reality, VR Demo, What makes a good benchmark? |

The XPRTs embrace virtual reality

By Eric Hale

on February 23, 2017

Durham, NC – Virtual reality (VR) continues to open new and exciting worlds of possibility, but how do consumers know if their tech can handle its computing demands? The XPRTs have long provided the tools everyone needs to inform purchases, and now they’re turning to VR. For more, see the video at https://youtu.be/liqJyKsDp-c.

Principled Technologies (PT) and the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community, which PT administers, recently sponsored a senior project at the NC State Computer Science Department Senior Design Center. PT advised NC State team members Christian McCurdy, Gregory Manning, Grayson Jones, and Shon Ferguson in the development of a prototype virtual reality evaluation tool.

“Developing the VR benchmark with XPRT tools as guidelines taught us to test for a more real-world scenario instead of trying for numbers that consumers might not understand,” said student Grayson Jones.

Learn more about the XPRTs and try the VR demo at http://www.principledtechnologies.com/benchmarkxprt/vr-demo.

About Principled Technologies, Inc.

Principled Technologies, Inc. is the leading provider of technology marketing and learning & development services. It administers the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community.

Principled Technologies, Inc. is located in Durham, North Carolina, in NC’s Research Triangle Park Region. For more information, please visit www.principledtechnologies.com.

Company Contact

Eric Hale
Principled Technologies, Inc.
1007 Slater Road, Suite #300
Durham, NC 27703
ehale@principledtechnologies.com

About the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community

The BenchmarkXPRT Development Community is a forum where registered members can contribute to the process of creating and improving the XPRTs. For more information, please visit www.BenchmarkXPRT.com.

About the NC State University Computer Science Department Senior Design Center

The Senior Design Center brings together Computer Science seniors and sponsor companies to work on a specific project for a semester. This collaboration provides valuable hands-on experience for the students and important project results for the companies sponsoring them. For more information, please visit https://sdc.csc.ncsu.edu.

Posted in Press Releases |

Experience is the best teacher

By Eric Hale

on February 16, 2017

One of the core principles that guides the design of the XPRT tools is they should reflect the way real-world users use their devices. The XPRTs try to use applications and workloads that reflect what users do and the way that real applications function. How did we learn how important this is? The hard way—by making mistakes! Here’s one example.

In the 1990s, I was Director of Testing for the Ziff-Davis Benchmark Operation (ZDBOp). The benchmarks ZDBOp created for its technical magazines became the industry standards, because of both their quality and Ziff-Davis’ leadership in the technical trade press.

WebBench, one of the benchmarks ZDBOp developed, measured the performance of early web servers. We worked hard to create a tool that used physical clients and tested web server performance over an actual network. However, we didn’t pay enough attention to how clients actually interacted with the servers. In the first version of WebBench, the clients opened connections to the server, did a small amount of work, closed the connections, and then opened new ones.

When we met with vendors after the release of WebBench, they begged us to change the model. At that time, browsers opened relatively long-lived connections and did lots of work before closing them. Our model was almost the opposite of that. It put vendors in the position of having to choose between coding to give their users good performance and coding to get good WebBench results.

Of course, we were horrified by this, and worked hard to make the next version of the benchmark reflect more closely the way real browsers interacted with web servers. Subsequent versions of WebBench were much better received.

This is one of the roots from which the XPRT philosophy grew. We have tried to learn and grow from the mistakes we’ve made. We’d love to hear about any of your experiences with performance tools so we can all learn together.

Eric

Posted in Application-based benchmarks, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT development community, History of benchmarking, Performance benchmarking, What makes a good benchmark? |

A new HDXPRT 2014 build is available

By Justin Greene

on February 9, 2017

Last fall, we identified a way to run HDXPRT 2014, originally developed for Windows 8, on Windows 10. The method involved overwriting the HDXPRT CPU-Z files with newer versions and performing a few additional pre-test configuration steps. You can read more details about those steps here.

Today, we’re releasing a new build of HDXPRT 2014 (v1.2) that eliminates the need to overwrite the CPU-Z files. The new build is available for download at HDXPRT.com. Please note that the app package is 5.08 GB, so allow time and space for the download process.

We also updated the HDXPRT 2014 User Manual to reflect changes in pre-test system configuration and to include the settings we recommend for newer builds of Windows 10.

The changes in the new build do not affect results, so v1.2 scores are comparable to v1.1 scores on the same system.

The new build ran well during testing in our labs, but issues could emerge as Microsoft releases new Windows updates. If you have any questions about HDXPRT or encounter any issues during testing, we encourage you to let us know.

We look forward to seeing your test results!

Justin

Posted in Application-based benchmarks, Collaborative benchmark development, HDXPRT, HDXPRT 2014, Performance benchmarking, Windows 10 |

TouchXPRT’s future

By Bill Catchings

on February 2, 2017

If you’ve been following the blog, you know that we’ve been reviewing each part of the XPRT portfolio. If you missed our discussions of HDXPRT, BatteryXPRT, WebXPRT, and CrXPRT, we encourage you to check them out and send us any thoughts you may have. This week, we continue that series by discussing the state of TouchXPRT and what we see down the road for it in 2017.

We released TouchXPRT 2016, an app for evaluating the performance of Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile devices, last February. We built the app by porting TouchXPRT 2014 performance workloads to the new Universal Windows App format, which allows a single app package to run on PCs, phones, tablets, and even consoles.

TouchXPRT 2016 installation is quick and easy, and the test completes in under 15 minutes on most devices. The app runs tests based on five everyday tasks (Beautify Photos, Blend Photos, Convert Videos for Sharing, Create Music Podcast, and Create Slideshow from Photos). It measures how long your device takes to complete each task, produces results for each scenario, and gives you an overall score.

As we think about the path forward for TouchXPRT, we’re aware that many expect 2017 to be a year of significant change in the Windows world, with two updates scheduled for release. Microsoft is slated to release the Windows 10 Creators Update (Build 1704) in April, and a subsequent version of Windows codenamed Redstone 3 may arrive this fall. Many tech observers believe that the Creators Update will introduce new creativity and gaming features, along with a UI upgrade named Project NEON. Major foundational shifts in the OS’s structure are more likely to appear with Redstone 3. At this point, quite a lot is still up in the air, but we’ll be following developments closely.

As we learn more about upcoming changes, we’ll have the opportunity to reevaluate TouchXPRT workloads and determine the best way to incorporate new technologies. Virtual reality, 3D, and 4K are especially exciting, but it’s too soon to know how we might incorporate them in a future version of TouchXPRT.

Because TouchXPRT 2016 continues to run well on a wide range of Windows 10 devices, we think it’s best to keep supporting the current version until we get a better idea of what’s in store for Windows.

If you have any thoughts on the future of Windows performance testing, please let us know!

Bill

Posted in BatteryXPRT 2014 for Android, BenchmarkXPRT development community, CrXPRT, Future of performance evaluation, HDXPRT, MobileXPRT, PCs, TouchXPRT, TouchXPRT 2016, TouchXPRT development process, TouchXPRT release cycle, WebXPRT 2017, Windows 10 |