BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Tag Archives: AI

WebXPRT can help you choose the right back-to-school tech

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on August 7, 2025

For many students, the excitement and anticipation of a new school year is right round the corner! In addition to being an opportunity to dive into new subjects, meet new people, and make progress toward learning goals, the back-to-school season often provides students and teachers with a chance to shop for new technology to meet their needs in the coming year. The tech marketplace can be confusing, however, with a slew of brands, options, and claims competing for back-to-school dollars.

Never fear: WebXPRT can help!

Whether you’re shopping for a new phone, tablet, Chromebook, laptop, or desktop, WebXPRT can provide industry-trusted performance scores that can help give you confidence that you’re making a smart purchasing decision.

And in this age of AI, WebXPRT performance scores do account for specific AI tasks. The benchmark includes timed AI tasks in two workloads, which reflect the types of light browser-side inference tasks that are now quite common in consumer-oriented web applications and extensions. You can read more about that in previous blog entries on the “Organize Album using AI” and “Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan” workloads.

To see how devices stack up, the WebXPRT 4 results viewer is a good place to start. The viewer displays the WebXPRT 4 scores of over 975 devices—including many of the hottest new releases—and we’re adding more 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 way to find WebXPRT scores is to go directly to the tech press. If you’re considering a popular device, there’s a good chance that a recent tech review includes a WebXPRT score for that device. There are two quick ways to find these reviews: You can either (1) search for “WebXPRT” on a tech review site or (2) use a search engine and enter the device name and WebXPRT as search terms, such as “Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon” and “WebXPRT.”

Here are a few recent articles and tech reviews that used WebXPRT:


If you’re excited about the opportunity to buy new tech for school, WebXPRT can provide you with the information you need to make more confident tech purchases. As this new school year begins, we hope you’ll find the data you need on our site or in an XPRT-related tech review. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions about WebXPRT or WebXPRT scores!

Justin

Posted in AI, Apple, ASUS, benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chromebooks, Cross-platform benchmarks, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Microsoft, OCR, Performance benchmarking, Samsung, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Browser-based AI tests in WebXPRT 4: optical character recognition

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on July 3, 2025

In our previous blog post, we discussed the rapidly expanding influence of AI-enhanced technologies in areas like everyday browser activity—and the growing need for objective performance data that can help us understand how well new consumer devices will handle AI tasks. We noted that WebXPRT 4 already includes timed AI tasks in two of its workloads—the “Organize Album using AI” and “Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan”—and we provided some technical details for the Organize Album workload. In today’s post, we’ll focus on the Encrypt Notes workload.

The Encrypt Notes workload includes two separate scenarios that reflect common web-based productivity app tasks. The first scenario syncs a set of encrypted notes, and the second scenario uses AI-based optical character recognition (OCR) to scan a receipt, extract data, and then add that data to an expense report.

Here are the details for each scenario:

  • The encrypt notes scenario downloads a set of notes, encrypts that data, temporarily stores it in the browser’s localStorage object (the localStorageDB.js database layer), and then decrypts and renders it for display. This scenario measures HTML5 Local Storage, JavaScript, AES encryption, and WebAssembly (Wasm) performance. 
  • The OCR scan scenario uses a Wasm-based version of Tesseract.js (tesseract-core.wasm.js v2.20) to scan an expense receipt. Tesseract.js is a JavaScript port of the Tesseract OCR engine—a popular open-source C/C++ library that extracts text from images and PDFs. The scenario then adds the receipt to an expense report. This scenario measures HTML5 Local Storage, JavaScript, and Wasm performance. 

We mention this test under the AI umbrella in part because people sometimes use the term “OCR” to refer to a spectrum of AI and non-AI technologies. In this case, though, the specifics make this workload clearly have an AI component. The Wasm-based Tesseract library that we use in WebXPRT 4 is based on a version of C/C++ (v4.x) that uses Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM). LSTM is a type of recurrent neural network (RNN) that is particularly well-suited for processing and predicting sequential data. As such, it is clearly an AI component of the Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan workload.

To produce a score for each iteration of the workload, WebXPRT calculates the total time that it takes for a system to sync (encrypt, decrypt, and render) the notes, use OCR to scan the receipt, and add the scanned data to an expense report. In a standard test, WebXPRT runs seven iterations of the entire six-workload performance suite before calculating an overall test score. You can find out more about the WebXPRT results calculation process here.

Along with our post on the Organize Album workload, we hope this information provides a deeper understanding of WebXPRT 4’s AI-equipped workloads. As we mentioned last time, if you want to explore the structure of these workloads in more detail, you can check out previous blog posts for information about how to access and use the WebXPRT 4 source code for free. You can also read more about WebXPRT’s overall structure and other workloads in the Exploring WebXPRT 4 white paper.

If you have any questions about WebXPRT 4, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, computer vision, Cross-platform benchmarks, HTML5, inference, OCR, on-device AI, Performance benchmarking, Wasm, Web-based testing, WebAssembly, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, White papers | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Browser-based AI tests in WebXPRT 4: face detection and image classification

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on June 5, 2025

I recently revisited an XPRT blog entry that we posted from CES Las Vegas back in 2020. In that post, I reflected on the show’s expanded AI emphasis, and I wondered if we were reaching a tipping point where AI-enhanced and AI-driven tools and applications would become a significant presence in people’s daily lives. It felt like we were approaching that point back then with the prevalence of AI-powered features such as image enhancement and text recommendation, among many others. Now, seamless AI integration with common online tasks has become so widespread that many people unknowingly benefit from AI interactions several times a day.

As AI’s role in areas like everyday browser activity continues to grow—along with our expectations for what our consumer devices should be able to handle—reliable AI-oriented benchmarking is more vital than ever. We need objective performance data that can help us understand how well a new desktop, laptop, tablet, or phone will handle AI tasks.

WebXPRT 4 already includes timed AI tasks in two of its workloads: the “Organize Album using AI” workload and the “Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan” workload. These two workloads reflect the types of light browser-side inference tasks that are now fairly common in consumer-oriented web apps and extensions. In today’s post, we’ll provide some technical information about the Organize Album workload. In a future post, we’ll do the same for the Encrypt Notes workload.

The Organize Album workload includes two different timed tasks that reflect a common scenario of organizing online photo albums. The workload utilizes the AI inference and JavaScript capabilities of the WebAssembly (Wasm) version of OpenCV.js—an open-source computer vision and machine learning library. In WebXPRT 4, we used OpenCV.js version 4.5.2.

Here are the details for each task:

  • The first task measures the time it takes to complete a face detection job with a set of five 720 x 480 photos that we sourced from commercial photo sites. The workload loads a Caffe deep learning framework model (res10_300x300_ssd_iter_140000_fp16.caffemodel) using the commands found here. 
  • The second task measures the time it takes to complete an image classification job (labeling based on object detection) with a different set of five 718 x 480 photos that we sourced from the ImageNet computer vision dataset. The workload loads an ONNX-based SqueezeNet machine learning model (squeezenet.onnx v 1.0) using the commands found here.

To produce a score for each iteration of the workload, WebXPRT calculates the total time that it takes for a system to organize both albums. In a standard test, WebXPRT runs seven iterations of the entire six-workload performance suite before calculating an overall test score. You can find out more about the WebXPRT results calculation process here.

We hope this post will give you a better sense of how WebXPRT 4 measures one kind of AI performance. As a reminder, if you want to dig into the details at a more granular level, you can access the WebXPRT 4 source code for free. In previous blog posts, you can find information about how to access and use the code. You can also read more about WebXPRT’s overall structure and other workloads in the Exploring WebXPRT 4 white paper.

If you have any questions about this workload or any other aspect of WebXPRT 4, please let us know!

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, Benchmarking computing devices, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Caffe, CES, Collaborative benchmark development, computer vision, Consumer Electronics Show, Cross-platform benchmarks, face detection, image classification, ImageNet, inference, JavaScript, Las Vegas, object detection, OCR, On-premise, ONNX Runtime Web, Performance benchmarking, SqueezeNet, Wasm, WebAssembly, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recent XPRT mentions in articles, reviews, and more!

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on April 10, 2025

Here at the XPRTs, our primary goal is to provide free, easy-to-use benchmark tools that can help everyone—from OEM labs to tech press journalists to individual consumers—understand how well devices will perform while completing everyday computing tasks. We track progress toward that goal in several ways, but one of the most important is how much people use and discuss the XPRTs. When the name of one of our apps appears in an ad, article, or tech review, we call it a “mention.” Tracking mentions helps us gauge our reach.

We occasionally like to share a sample of recent XPRT mentions here in the blog. If you just started following the XPRTs, it may be surprising to see our program’s global reach. If you’re a longtime reader and you’re used to seeing WebXPRT or CrXPRT in major tech press articles, it may be surprising to learn more about overseas tech press publications or see how some government agencies use the XPRTs to make decisions. In any case, we hope you’ll enjoy exploring the links below!

Recent mentions include:

If you’d like to receive monthly updates on XPRT-related news and activity, we encourage you to sign up for the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community newsletter. It’s completely free, and all you need to do to join the newsletter mailing list is let us know! We won’t publish, share, or sell any of the contact information you provide, and we’ll only send you the monthly newsletter and occasional benchmark-related announcements, such as important news about patches or releases.

If you have any questions about the XPRTs, suggestions, or requests for future blog topics, please feel free to contact us.

Justin

Posted in AI, benchmark, Benchmarking, BenchmarkXPRT, BenchmarkXPRT development community, Chromebooks, CrXPRT, Dell, iPhone, Laptops, Simplified Chinese, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4 | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The XPRTs: What would you like to see in 2025?

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on December 19, 2024

If you’re a new follower of the XPRT family of benchmarks, you may not be aware of one of the characteristics of the XPRTs that sets them apart from many benchmarking efforts—our openness and commitment to valuing the feedback of tech journalists, lab engineers, and anyone else that uses the XPRTs on a regular basis. That feedback helps us to ensure that as the XPRTs grow and evolve, the resources we offer will continue to meet the needs of those that use them.

In the past, user feedback has influenced specific aspects of our benchmarks, such as the length of test runs, UI features, results presentation, and the addition or subtraction of specific workloads. More broadly, we have also received suggestions for entirely new XPRTs and ways we might target emerging technologies or industry use cases.

As we look forward to what’s in store for the XPRTs in 2025, we’d love to hear your ideas about new XPRTs—or new features for existing XPRTs. Are you aware of hardware form factors, software platforms, new technologies, or prominent applications that are difficult or impossible to evaluate using existing performance benchmarks? Should we incorporate additional or different technologies into existing XPRTs through new workloads? Do you have suggestions for ways to improve any of the XPRTs or XPRT-related tools, such as results viewers?

We’re especially interested in your thoughts about the next steps for WebXPRT. If our recent blog posts about the potential addition of an AI-focused auxiliary workload, what a WebXPRT battery life test would entail, or possible WebAssembly-based test scenarios have piqued your interest, we’d love to hear your thoughts!

We’re genuinely interested in your answers to these questions and any other ideas you have, so please feel free to contact us. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and working together to figure out how they could help shape the XPRTs in 2025!

Justin

Posted in AI, Battery life, benchmark, BenchmarkXPRT, browser performance, Collaborative benchmark development, Future of performance evaluation, Performance benchmarking, WebXPRT, WebXPRT 4, What makes a good benchmark? | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking through a potential WebXPRT 4 battery life test

Justin Greene
By Justin Greene
on October 17, 2024

In recent blog posts, we’ve discussed some of the technical considerations we’re working through on our path toward a future AI-focused WebXPRT 4 auxiliary workload. While we’re especially excited about adding to WebXPRT 4’s AI performance evaluation capabilities, AI is not the only area of potential WebXPRT 4 expansion that we’ve thought about. We’re always open to hearing suggestions for ways we can improve WebXPRT 4, including any workload proposals you may have. Several users have asked about the possibility of a WebXPRT 4 battery life test, so today we’ll discuss what one might look like and some of the challenges we’d have to overcome to make it a reality.

Battery life tests fall into two primary categories: simple rundown tests and performance-weighted tests. Simple rundown tests measure battery life during extreme idle periods and loops of movie playbacks, etc., but do not reflect the wide-ranging mix of activities that characterize a typical day for most users. While they can be useful for performing very specific apples-to-apples comparisons, these tests don’t always give consumers an accurate estimate of the battery life they would experience in daily use.

In contrast, performance-weighted battery life tests, such as the one in CrXPRT 2, attempt to reflect real-world usage. The CrXPRT battery life test simulates common daily usage patterns for Chromebooks by including all the productivity workloads from the performance test, plus video playback, audio playback, and gaming scenarios. It also includes periods of wait/idle time. We believe this mixture of diverse activity and idle time better represents typical real-life behavior patterns. This makes the resulting estimated battery life much more helpful for consumers who are trying to match a device’s capabilities with their real-world needs.

From a technical standpoint, WebXPRT’s cross-platform nature presents us with several challenges that we did not face while developing the CrXPRT battery life test for ChromeOS. While the WebXPRT performance tests run in almost any browser, cross-browser differences and limitations in battery life reporting may restrict any future battery life test to a single browser or browser family. For instance, with the W3C Battery Status API, we can currently query battery status data from non-mobile Chromium-based browsers (e.g., Chrome, Edge, Opera, etc.), but not from Firefox or Safari. If a WebXPRT 4 battery life test supported only a single browser family, such as Chromium-based browsers, would you still be interested in using it? Please let us know.

A browser-based battery life workflow also presents other challenges that we do not face in native client applications, such as CrXPRT:

  • A browser-based battery life test may require the user to check the starting and ending battery capacities, with no way for the app to independently verify data accuracy.
  • The battery life test could require more babysitting in the event of network issues. We can catch network failures and try to handle them by reporting periods of network disconnection, but those interruptions could influence the battery life duration.
  • The factors above could make it difficult to achieve repeatability. One way to address that problem would be to run the test in a standardized lab environment with a steady internet connection, but a long list of standardized environmental requirements would make the battery life test less attractive and less accessible to many testers.

We’re not sharing these thoughts to make a WebXPRT 4 battery life test seem like an impossibility. Rather, we want to offer our perspective on what the test might look like and describe some of the challenges and considerations in play. If you have thoughts about battery life testing, or experience with battery life APIs in one or more of the major browsers, we’d love to hear from you!

Justin

Posted in AI, battery life, benchmark, Benchmark metrics, Benchmarking, browser performance, Browser-based benchmarks, Chrome, Chromium, Collaborative benchmark development, Cross-platform benchmarks, CrXPRT, Firefox, Future of performance evaluation, Performance benchmarking, Safari | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?
© Principled Technologies, Inc. 2025   |   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