BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Category: Performance of computing devices

XPRTs in the press

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on May 12, 2022

Each month, we send a newsletter to members of the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community. In the newsletter, we recap the latest updates from the XPRT world and provide a summary of the previous month’s XPRT-related activity, including uses or mentions of the XPRTs in the tech press. More people read the weekly XPRT blog than receive the monthly newsletter, so we realized that some blog readers may be unaware of the wide variety of tech outlets that regularly use or mention the XPRTs.

So for today’s blog, we want to give readers a sampling of the XPRT press usage we see on a weekly basis. Recent mentions include:

  • Tom’s Guide used HDXPRT 4 to compare the performance of the Geekom Mini IT8 and Dell OptiPlex 7090 Ultra small-form-factor PCs.
  • Intel used WebXPRT 4 test data in promotional material for their line of 12th Gen) Intel Core processors(Alder Lake). Hundreds of press outlets then republished the presentation.
  • AnandTech used WebXPRT 4 to evaluate the Cincoze DS-1300 Industrial PC.
  • ZDNet used CrXPRT 2 in a review titled The best Chromebooks for students: Student-proof laptops.
  • PCWorld used CrXPRT 2 to provide data for an article listing their top Chromebook recommendations.
  • TechPowerUp used WebXPRT 3 to compare the browser performance of Intel Core i9-12900KS processor-based systems and other Intel- and AMD processor-based systems.
  • Other outlets that have published articles, ads, or reviews mentioning the experts in the last few months include: Android Authority, ASUS, BenchLife, Gadgets 360, Good Gear Guide, Hardware.info, Hot Hardware, ITHardware (Poland), ITMedia (Japan), Itndaily (Russia), Mobile01.com (China), Notebookcheck, PCMag, ProClockers, Sohu.com (China), Tom’s Hardware, and Tweakers.

If you don’t currently receive the monthly BenchmarkXPRT newsletter, but would like to join the mailing list, please let us know! We will not publish or sell any of the contact information you provide, and will only send the monthly newsletter and occasional benchmark-related announcements such as patch notifications or new benchmark releases.

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Chromebooks, Cross-platform benchmarks, CrXPRT, HDXPRT, HDXPRT 4, Performance benchmarking, Performance of computing devices, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, webxprt 4 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

The WebXPRT 4 Preview is here!

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on December 20, 2021

We’re excited to announce that the WebXPRT 4 Preview is now available! Testers can access the Preview at www.WebXPRT4.com or through a link on WebXPRT.com. The Preview is available to everyone, and testers can now publish scores from Preview build testing. We may still tweak a few things, but will limit any changes that we make between the Preview and the final release to the UI and features we do not expect to affect test scores.

Longtime WebXPRT users will notice that the WebXPRT 4 Preview has a new, but familiar, UI. The general process for kicking off both manual and automated tests is the same as with WebXPRT 3, so the transition from WebXPRT 3 to WebXPRT 4 testing should be straightforward. We encourage everyone to visit the XPRT blog for more details about what’s new in this Preview release.

In addition, keep your eye on the blog for more details about the all-new WebXPRT 4 results viewer, which we expect to publish in the very near future. We think WebXPRT testers will enjoy using the viewer to explore our WebXPRT 4 test data!

After you try the WebXPRT 4 Preview, please send us your comments. Thanks and happy testing!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Performance benchmarking, Performance of computing devices, results, Web-based testing, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, webxprt 4 | Tagged , , , , , , |

It’s time to shop for the holidays, and the XPRTs are here to help!

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on November 4, 2021

The holiday season is fast approaching, and with widespread product shortages and supply chain interruptions in the tech industry, it’s wise to start your holiday shopping now. If you’re considering phones, tablets, Chromebooks, or laptops as gifts, but are unsure where to get reliable information about the devices, the XPRTs can help!

One of the core functions of the XPRTs is to cut through the marketing noise by providing objective, reliable measures of a device’s performance. For example, instead of trying to guess whether a new Chromebook is fast enough to handle the demands of remote learning, you can use its CrXPRT and WebXPRT performance scores to see how it stacks up against the competition on everyday tasks.

A good place to start looking for device scores is our XPRT results browser, which lets you access our database of more than 2,800 test results from over 110 sources, including major tech review publications around the world, OEMs, and independent testers. You can find a wealth of current and historical performance data across all the XPRT benchmarks and hundreds of devices. Learn how to use the results browser here.

If you’re considering a popular device, chances are good that a recent tech review includes an XPRT score for that device. You can find these reviews by going to your favorite tech review site and searching for “XPRT,” or entering the name of the device and the appropriate XPRT (e.g., “Apple iPad” and “WebXPRT”) in a search engine. Here are a few recent tech reviews that use one or more of the XPRTs to evaluate popular devices:

The XPRTs can help consumers make better-informed and more confident tech purchases this holiday season, and 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

Posted in AnandTech, Chrome OS, Chromebooks, Cross-platform benchmarks, CrXPRT, Google Chrome, Laptops, Mobile devices, PCs, Performance of computing devices, Phones, results, Tablets, WebXPRT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , |

Using WebXPRT 3 to compare the performance of popular browsers (Round 3)

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on August 19, 2021

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!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmarking, Browser-based benchmarks, Performance benchmarking, Performance of computing devices, results, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, webxprt 4, Windows 10 |

How to submit WebXPRT results for publication

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on June 24, 2021

It’s been a while since we last discussed the process for submitting WebXPRT results to be considered for publication in the WebXPRT results browser and the WebXPRT Processor Comparison Chart, so we thought we’d offer a refresher.

Unlike sites that publish all results they receive, we hand-select results from internal lab testing, user submissions, and reliable tech media sources. In each case, we evaluate whether the score is consistent with general expectations. For sources outside of our lab, that evaluation includes confirming that there is enough detailed system information to help us determine whether the score makes sense. We do this for every score on the WebXPRT results page and the general XPRT results page. All WebXPRT results we publish automatically appear in the processor comparison chart as well.

Submitting your score is quick and easy. At the end of the WebXPRT test run, click the Submit your results button below the overall score, complete the short submission form, and click Submit again. The screenshot below shows how the form would look if I submitted a score at the end of a WebXPRT 3 run on my personal system.

After you submit your score, we’ll contact you to confirm how we should display the source. You can choose one of the following:

  • Your first and last name
  • “Independent tester” (for those who wish to remain anonymous)
  • Your company’s name, provided that you have permission to submit the result in their name. To use a company name, we ask that you provide a valid company email address.


We will not publish any additional information about you or your company without your permission.

We look forward to seeing your score submissions, and if you have suggestions for the processor chart or any other aspect of the XPRTs, let us know!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Browser-based benchmarks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Performance of computing devices, results, results submission, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 3, WebXPRT Processor Comparison Chart | Tagged , , , , , , |

The CloudXPRT v1.1 beta is available!

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on February 18, 2021

Last week, we announced that a CloudXPRT v1.1 beta was on the way. We’re happy to say that the v1.1 beta is now available to the public on a dedicated CloudXPRT v1.1 beta download page. While CloudXPRT v1.01 remains the officially supported version on CloudXPRT.com and in our GitHub repository, interested testers can use the v1.1 beta version in new environments as we finalize the v1.1 build for official release. You are welcome to publish results as we do not expect results to change in the final, official release.

As we mentioned in last week’s post, the CloudXPRT v1.1 beta includes the following changes:

  • We’ve added support for Ubuntu 20.04.2 or later for on-premises testing.
  • We’ve consolidated and standardized the installation packages for both workloads. Instead of one package for the data analytics workload and four separate packages for the web microservices workload, each workload has a single installation package that supports on-premises testing and testing with all three supported CSPs.
  • We’ve incorporated Terraform to help create and configure VMs, which helps to prevent problems when testers do not allocate enough storage per VM prior to testing.
  • We’ve replaced the Calico network plugin in Kubespray with Weave, which helps to avoid some of the network issues testers have occasionally encountered in the CPS environment.

Please feel free to share the link to the beta download page. (To avoid confusion, the beta will not appear in the main CloudXPRT download table.) We can’t yet state definitively whether results from the new version will be comparable to those from v1.01. We have not observed any significant differences in performance, but we haven’t tested every possible test configuration across every platform. If you observe different results when testing the same configuration with v1.01 and v1.1 beta, please send us the details so we can investigate.

If you have any questions about CloudXPRT or the CloudXPRT v1.1 beta, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, Cloud, CloudXPRT, Cross-platform benchmarks, data analytics, Datacenter, Hosted cloud, Hybrid cloud, IaaS, Kubernetes, microservices, on premises, Performance benchmarking, Performance of computing devices, results, Server, Ubuntu, web microservices | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?
© Principled Technologies, Inc. 2023   |   Privacy policy

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.

x