BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Month: January 2022

Why we don’t control screen brightness during CrXPRT 2 battery life tests

Recently, we had a discussion with a community member about why we no longer recommend specific screen brightness settings during CrXPRT 2 battery life tests. In the CrXPRT 2015 user manual, we recommended setting the test system’s screen brightness to 200 nits. Because the amount of power that a system directs to screen brightness can have a significant impact on battery life, we believed that pegging screen brightness to a common standard for all test systems would yield apple-to-apples comparisons.

After extensive experience with CrXPRT 2015 testing, we decided to not recommend a standard screen brightness with CrXPRT 2, for the following reasons:

  • A significant number of Chromebooks cannot produce a screen brightness of 200 nits. A few higher-end models can do so, but they are not representative of most Chromebooks. Some Chromebooks, especially those that many school districts and corporations purchase in bulk, cannot produce a brightness of even 100 nits.
  • Because of the point above, adjusting screen brightness would not represent real-life conditions for most Chromebooks, and the battery life results could mislead consumers who want to know the battery life they can expect with default out-of-box settings.
  • Most testers, and even some labs, do not have light meters, and the simple brightness percentages that the operating system reports produce different degrees of brightness on different systems. For testers without light meters, a standardized screen brightness recommendation could discourage them from running the test.
  • The brightness controls for some low-end Chromebooks lack the fine-tuning capability that is necessary to standardize brightness between systems. In those cases, an increase or decrease of one notch can swing brightness by 20 to 30 nits in either direction. This could also discourage testing by leading people to believe that they lack the capability to correctly run the test.

In situations where testers want to compare battery life using standardized screen brightness, we recommend using light meters to set the brightness levels as closely as possible. If the brightness levels between systems vary by more than few nits, and if the levels vary significantly from out-of-box settings, the publication of any resulting battery life results should include a full disclosure and explanation of test conditions.

For the majority of testers without light meters, running the CrXPRT 2 battery life test with default screen brightness settings on each system provides a reliable and accurate estimate of the type of real-world, out-of-box battery life consumers can expect.

If you have any questions or comments about the CrXPRT 2 battery life test, please feel free to contact us!

Justin

We fixed two bugs affecting the WebXPRT 4 Preview results-page

We launched a preview of the WebXPRT 4 results viewer just before the new year, and have published over 75 results from a wide range of devices. We appreciate the results submissions we’ve received from independent testers so far, and will continue to populate the viewer with WebXPRT 4 Preview results from both our own testing and PT-curated external submissions.

If you’ve run the test and have tried to submit results, you may have encountered one or both of the following bugs, depending on the device type you’re testing:

  • You filled out the results submission form, but the Submit button didn’t seem to do anything.
  • The test automatically downloaded the results csv file multiple times.

We’ve identified the causes of the two bugs, and have instituted fixes. The bug fixes do not affect the benchmark’s workloads or scores. If you tested the WebXPRT 4 Preview and were frustrated by the results submission bugs, we apologize for the inconvenience, and invite you to retry submitting your results.

If you have any questions or comments about the WebXPRT 4 Preview or the results viewer, please feel free to contact us!

Justin

Looking back on 2021 with the XPRTs

As 2022 gets underway, we want to take this opportunity to look back on 2021 and review another productive year for the XPRTs. Readers of our newsletter are familiar with the stats and updates we include each month, but for our blog readers who don’t receive the newsletter, we’ve compiled some highlights below.

Benchmarks
In the past year, we released the WebXPRT 4 Preview, CloudXPRT v1.1, and an updated CrXPRT 2 build that included a fix for prior issues with the battery life test.

XPRTs in the media
Journalists, advertisers, and analysts referenced the XPRTs thousands of times in 2021. It’s always rewarding to know that the XPRTs have proven to be useful and reliable assessment tools for technology publications such as AnandTech, Expert Reviews, Gadgets 360, Gizmodo, Hot Hardware, Laptop Mag, Legit Reviews, Notebookcheck, PCMag, PCWorld, TechPowerUp, Tom’s Hardware, and ZDNet.

Downloads and confirmed runs
In 2021, we had more than 23,600 benchmark downloads and 228,900 confirmed runs. Our most popular benchmark, WebXPRT, just passed 909,800 runs since its debut in 2013! WebXPRT continues to be a go-to, industry-standard performance benchmark for OEM labs, vendors, and leading tech press outlets around the globe.

Media, publications, and interactive tools
Part of our mission with the XPRTs is to produce tools and materials that help testers better understand the ins and outs of benchmarking in general and the XPRTs in particular. To help achieve this goal, we published the following in 2021:

We’re thankful for everyone who has used the XPRTs, joined the community, and sent questions and suggestions throughout 2021. We look forward to an exciting 2022!

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?