BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Month: August 2019

Planning for the next TouchXPRT

We’re in the very early planning stages for the next version of TouchXPRT, and we’d love to hear any suggestions you may have. What do you like or dislike about TouchXPRT? What features do you hope to see in a new version?

For those who are unfamiliar with TouchXPRT, it’s a benchmark for evaluating the performance of Windows 10 devices. TouchXPRT 2016, the most recent version, runs tests based on five everyday scenarios (Beautify Photos, Blend Photos, Convert Videos for Sharing, Create Music Podcast, and Create Slideshow from Photos) and produces results for each of the five scenarios plus an overall score. The benchmark is available two ways: as a Universal Windows App in the Microsoft Store and as a sideload installer package on TouchXPRT.com.

When we begin work on a new version of any benchmark, one of the first steps we take is to assess its workloads to determine whether they will provide value during the years ahead. This step involves evaluating whether to update test content such as photos and videos to more contemporary file resolutions and sizes, and can also involve removing workloads or adding completely new ones. Should we keep the TouchXPRT workloads listed above or investigate other use cases? Should we research potential AI-related workloads? What do you think?

As we did with MobileXPRT 3 and HDXPRT 4 earlier this year, we’re also planning to update the TouchXPRT UI to improve the look of the benchmark and make it easier to use. We’re just at the beginning of this process, so any feedback you send has a chance to really shape the future of the benchmark.

On a related note, TouchXPRT 2016 testers who use the installer package available on TouchXPRT.com may have noticed that the package has a new file name (TX2016.6.52.0_8.19.19.zip). Microsoft requires developers to assign a security certificate to all sideload apps, and the new TouchXPRT file contains a refreshed certificate. We did not change the benchmark in any other way, so scores from this package are comparable to previous TouchXPRT 2016 scores.

Justin

A CrXPRT fix for Chrome 76

After Chrome OS version 76 moved from Chrome’s Beta channel to the Stable channel last week, we became aware of an issue that occurs when CrXPRT’s Photo Collage workload runs on a Chrome 76 system. We found that the Photo Collage workload produces an error message—“This plugin is not supported on this device”—and the test run does not complete.

The error occurs because the Photo Collage workload uses Portable Native Client (PNaCl), and starting with version 76, the Chrome team changed the way the OS handles PNaCl tasks. Technically, Chrome still supports PNaCl, but the OS now disables the capability by default. Chrome’s current plan is to end support for PNaCl by the end of this year, focusing related development efforts on WebAssembly instead.

We’ll investigate the best path forward during this transition, but for now, testers can use the following workaround that allows CrXPRT to complete successfully. Simply navigate to chrome://flags on the test system, and find the Native Client flag, which is set to “Disabled” by default. Click the toggle switch to “Enabled” to allow native client capabilities, restart the system, and kick off a CrXPRT test in the normal manner.

We’ll update the CrXPRT web page and test documentation to include information about the workaround. In the long term, we’re interested in any suggestions you have for CrXPRT—whether they’re related to PNaCl or not. Please let us know your thoughts!

Justin

The 2019 XPRT Spotlight Back-to-School Roundup

With the new school year approaching, we’re pleased to announce that we’ve just published our fourth annual XPRT Spotlight Back-to-School Roundup! The Roundup allows shoppers to view side-by-side comparisons of XPRT test scores and hardware specs from some of this year’s most popular Chromebooks, laptops, tablets, and convertibles. After testing the devices in our lab using XPRT benchmarks, we’ve provided performance scores as well as photo galleries, PT-verified device specs, and prices. Parents, teachers, students, and administrators who are considering buying devices to use in their education environments have many options. The Roundup helps make their decisions easier by gathering product and performance facts in one convenient place.

The Back-to-School Roundup is just one of the features we offer through the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight. Every week, the Spotlight highlights a new device, making it easier for consumers to select a new laptop, phone, tablet, or PC. Recent devices in the Spotlight include the Dell G7 15 Gaming laptop, the HP Stream 14, the ASUS Chromebook Flip, the OnePlus 7 Pro phone, and the 2019 Apple iPad Mini. The Spotlight device comparison page lets you view side-by-side comparisons of all of the devices we’ve tested.

If you’re interested in having your devices featured in the XPRT Weekly Tech Spotlight or in this year’s Black Friday and Holiday Showcases, which we publish in late November, visit the website for more details.

If you have any ideas for the Spotlight page or suggestions for devices you’d like to see, let us know!

Justin

Understanding AIXPRT batch size

Last week, we wrote about the basics of understanding AIXPRT results. This week, we’re discussing one of the benchmark’s key test configuration variables: batch size. Talking about batch size can be confusing, because the phrase can refer to different concepts depending on the machine learning (ML) context in which it’s used. AIXPRT tests inference, so we’ll focus on how we use batch sizes in that context. For those who are interested, we provide more information about training batch size at the bottom of this post.

Batch size in inference
In the context of ML inference, the concept of batch size is straightforward. It simply refers to the number of combined input samples (e.g., images) that the tester wants the algorithm to process simultaneously. The purpose of adjusting batch size when testing inference performance is to achieve an optimal balance between latency (speed) and throughput (the total amount processed over time).

Because of the lighter load of processing one image at a time, Batch 1 often produces the fastest latency times, and can be a good indicator of how a system handles near-real-time inference demands from client devices. Larger batch sizes (8, 16, 32, 64, or 128) can result in higher throughput on test hardware that is capable of completing more inference work in parallel. However, this increased throughput can come at the expense of latency. Running concurrent inferences via larger batch sizes is a good way to test for maximum throughput on servers.

Configuring inference batch size in AIXPRT
A good practice when trying to figure out where to start with batch size is to match the batch size to the number of cores under test (e.g., Batch 8 for eight cores). To adjust batch size in AIXPRT, testers must edit the configuration files located in AIXPRT/Config. To represent a spectrum of common tunings, AIXPRT CP2 tests Batches 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 by default.

The screenshot below shows part of a sample config file. The numbers in the lines immediately below “batch_sizes” indicate the batch size. This test configuration would run tests using both Batch 1 and Batch 2. To change batch size, simply replace those numbers and save the changes.

Config_snip
Batch size in training
As we noted above, training batch size is different than inference batch size. For training, a batch is the group of samples used to train a model during one iteration and batch size is number of samples in a batch. (Note that in this context, an iteration is a single update of the algorithm’s parameters, not a complete test run.) With a batch size of one, the algorithm applies a single training sample to an image it is processing before updating its parameters. With a batch size of two, it would apply two training examples to an image before updating its parameters, and so on. Because neural network algorithms are iterative, a larger batch size setting during training increases the total number of iterations that occur during each pass through the data set. In combination with other variables, training batch size may ultimately affect metrics such as model accuracy and convergence (the point where additional training does not improve accuracy).

In the coming weeks, we’ll discuss other test configuration variables such as precision and the number of concurrent instances. We hope this series of blog entries will answer some of the common questions people have when first running the benchmark and help to make the AIXPRT testing process more approachable for testers who are just starting to explore machine learning. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.

Justin

Understanding AIXPRT results

Last week, we discussed the changes we made to the AIXPRT Community Preview 2 (CP2) download page as part of our ongoing effort to make AIXPRT easier to use. This week, we want to discuss the basics of understanding AIXPRT results by talking about the numbers that really matter and how to access and read the actual results files.

To understand AIXPRT results at a high level, it’s important to revisit the core purpose of the benchmark. AIXPRT’s bundled toolkits measure inference latency (the speed of image processing) and throughput (the number of images processed in a given time period) for image recognition (ResNet-50) and object detection (SSD-MobileNet v1) tasks. Testers have the option of adjusting variables such as batch size (the number of input samples to process simultaneously) to try and achieve higher levels of throughput, but higher throughput can come at the expense of increased latency per task. In real-time or near real-time use cases such as performing image recognition on individual photos being captured by a camera, lower latency is important because it improves the user experience. In other cases, such as performing image recognition on a large library of photos, achieving higher throughput might be preferable; designating larger batch sizes or running concurrent instances might allow the overall workload to complete more quickly.

The dynamics of these performance tradeoffs ensure that there is no single good score for all machine learning scenarios. Some testers might prefer lower latency, while others would sacrifice latency to achieve the higher level of throughput that their use case demands.

Testers can find latency and throughput numbers for each completed run in a JSON results file in the AIXPRT/Results folder. The test also generates CSV results files that are in the same folder. The raw results files report values for each AI task configuration (e.g., ResNet-50, Batch1, on CPU). Parsing and consolidating the raw data can take some time, so we’re developing a results file parsing tool to make the job much easier.

The results parsing tool is currently available in the AIXPRT CP2 OpenVINO – Windows package, and we hope to make it available for more packages soon. Using the tool is as simple as running a single command, and detailed instructions for how to do so are in the AIXPRT OpenVINO on Windows user guide. The tool produces a summary (example below) that makes it easier to quickly identify relevant comparison points such as maximum throughput and minimum latency.

AIXPRT results summary

In addition to the summary, the tool displays the throughput and latency results for each AI task configuration tested by the benchmark. AIXPRT runs each AI task multiple times and reports the average inference throughput and corresponding latency percentiles.

AIXPRT results details

We hope that this information helps to make it easier to understand AIXPRT results. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us.

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?