BenchmarkXPRT Blog banner

Tag Archives: benchmark

WebXPRT 5: Starting to assemble the pieces

In our last blog post, we shared the exciting news that we’re currently working on WebXPRT 5. In that post, we described some of the ways that WebXPRT may evolve with the release of WebXPRT 5. In today’s post, we’ll revisit some of the points of emphasis from the last post and focus on potential workload changes in a bit more detail.

With any benchmark development project, there are always technical challenges you need to iron out. That is especially true with a cross-platform, browser-based benchmark like WebXPRT. Because we’re in the middle of exploring the technical feasibility of a few of the options we’ll mention, we’re not yet ready to say for certain that all these features will be available in the initial WebXPRT 5 release. We can, however, now paint a clearer picture of the overall direction we’re headed.

In the section below, you’ll find updated info on where we stand with respect to some of the key development focal points we discussed in our last post. If there’s an item from that post or previous posts that we didn’t mention below—such as updating the test harness—it doesn’t mean that we’re dropping that goal. We’re just focusing on workloads today.

One of our key goals with WebXPRT 5 is providing more AI-related workloads. In past blog posts, we’ve discussed the growing importance of local, browser-side AI. With WebXPRT 5, we’re investigating two ways that we can expand WebXPRT’s AI portfolio: 1) updating existing WebXPRT 4 AI-oriented workloads, and 2) adding all-new AI workloads.

Here are some possible ways those AI-related changes may play out in both categories:

Updating existing WebXPRT 4 AI-oriented workloads

  • Splitting the existing Organize Album using AI workload’s timed tasks—face detection and image classification—into two independent workloads.
  • Updating the face detection and image classification tasks with the latest versions of the OpenCV.js computer vision and machine learning libraries.
  • Updating the Caffe deep learning framework for the face detection task.
  • Updating the ONNX-based SqueezeNet machine learning model for the image classification tasks.
  • Updating the version of the Tesseract.js OCR engine that WebXPRT uses in the Encrypt Notes and OCR Scan workload. 

Potentially adding all-new AI workloads (either core or experimental workloads)

  • We’re exploring the idea of including a workload that uses an AI-powered segmentation model to blur the background of a video call.
  • We’re exploring the feasibility of including a local LLM chat workload.
  • We would eventually like to include a WebGPU-based web AI framework for a computer vision workload.

In addition to the goal of adding more AI, we previously discussed the possibility of adding non-AI WebGPU workloads. As a web API, WebGPU enables web-based applications—such as image-based GenAI and inference workloads—to directly access the graphics rendering and computational capabilities of a system’s GPU. In the future, WebXPRT 5 could use that technology to execute complex 3D rendering workloads.

We hope today’s post gives you a better sense of where WebXPRT 5 may be headed. We want to reemphasize that while we are actively investigating the possible changes mentioned above, nothing is set in stone. As the pieces start to fall into place, we’ll provide more information here in the blog.

If you have any questions or comments about WebXPRT 5, please feel free to contact us!

Justin

CrXPRT 2 functionality is ending with ChromeOS 139

Back in January, we discussed the ChromeOS team’s decision to eventually end support for all user-installed Chrome Apps—including CrXPRT 2—upon the release of Chrome 138 in July of this year. As best we can tell, the move is part of their overall strategy of transitioning all support to Chrome extensions and Progressive Web Apps. We knew that after the support cutoff date, we would not be able to publish any fixes or updates for CrXPRT 2, but we weren’t exactly sure how the transition would affect the app’s overall functionality.

We’ve now confirmed that while CrXPRT 2 still functions normally through Chrome 138.0.7204.255 (beta), the app does not launch at all on Chrome Canary 139. Consequently, we expect that stable channel system updates will disable CrXPRT 2 on most systems after Chrome 139 goes live on August 5th. We will initially leave CrXPRT 2 on our site for those who want to use it on older versions of Chrome, but over time we will archive it as an inactive benchmark.

We want to extend our heartfelt thanks to the many people around the world who used CrXPRT 2 for lab evaluations, product reviews, and individual testing over the past several years. We’re grateful for your support! We will update readers here in the blog if we decide to pursue new ChromeOS benchmark development work in the future.

Justin

Best practices for WebXPRT testing

One of the strengths of WebXPRT is that it’s a remarkably easy benchmark to run. Its upfront simplicity attracts users with a wide range of technical skills—everyone from engineers in cutting-edge OEM labs to veteran tech journalists to everyday folks who simply want to test their gear’s browser performance. With so many different kinds of people running the test each day, it’s certain that at least some of them use very different approaches to testing. In today’s blog, we’re going to share some of the key benchmarking practices we follow in the XPRT lab—and encourage you to consider—in order to produce the most consistent and reliable WebXPRT scores.

We offer these best practices as tips you might find useful in your testing. Each step relates to evaluating browser performance with WebXPRT, but several of these practices will apply to other benchmarks as well.

  • Test with clean images: In the XPRT lab, we typically use an out-of-box (OOB) method for testing new devices. OOB testing means that other than running the initial OS and browser version updates that users are likely to run after first turning on the device, we change as little as possible before testing. We want to assess the performance that buyers are likely to see when they first purchase the device and before they install additional software. This approach is the best way to provide an accurate assessment of the performance retail buyers will experience from their new devices. That said, the OOB method is not appropriate for certain types of testing, such as when you want to compare largely identical systems or when you want to remove as much pre-loaded software as possible. The OOB method is less relevant to users who want to see how their device performs as it is.
  • Browser updates can have a significant impact: Most people know that different browsers often produce different performance scores on the same system. They may not know that there can be shifts in performance between different versions of the same browser. While most browser updates don’t have a large impact on performance, a few updates have increased (or even decreased) browser performance by a significant amount. For this reason, it’s always important to record and disclose the extended browser version number for each test run. The same principle applies to any other relevant software.
  • Turn off automatic updates: We do our best to eliminate or minimize app and system updates after initial setup. Some vendors are making it more difficult to turn off updates completely, but you should always double-check update settings before testing. On Windows systems, the same considerations apply to turning off User Account Control notifications.
  • Let the system settle: Depending on the system and the OS, a significant amount of system-level activity can be going on in the background after you turn it on. As much as possible, we like to wait for a stable baseline (idle time) of system activity before kicking off a test. If we start testing immediately after booting the system, we often see higher variance in the first run before the scores start to tighten up.
  • Run the test more than once: Because of natural variance, our standard practice in the XPRT lab is to publish a score that represents the median of three to five runs, if not more. If you run a benchmark only once and the score differs significantly from other published scores, your result could be an outlier that you would not see again under stable testing conditions or over the course of multiple runs.
  • Clear the cache: Browser caching can improve web page performance, including the loading of the types of JavaScript and HTML5 assets that WebXPRT uses in its workloads. Depending on the platform under test, browser caching may or may not significantly change WebXPRT scores, but clearing the cache before testing and between each run can help improve the accuracy and consistency of scores.

We hope these tips will serve as a good baseline methodology for your WebXPRT testing. If you have any questions about WebXPRT, the other XPRTs, or benchmarking in general, please let us know!

Justin

Recent XPRT mentions in articles, reviews, and more!

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

Archiving AIXPRT and CloudXPRT

Some of our readers have been following the XPRTs since the early days, and they may remember using legacy versions of benchmarks such as HDXPRT 2014 or WebXPRT 2013. For many years, whenever we released a new version of a benchmark, we would maintain a link to the previous version on the benchmark’s main page. However, as interest in the older versions understandably waned and we stopped formally supporting them, many of those legacy XPRTs stopped working on the latest versions of the operating systems or browsers that we designed them to test. While we wanted to continue to provide a way for users to access those legacy XPRTs, we also wanted to avoid potential confusion for new users who might see links to old versions on our site. We decided that the best solution was to archive older tests in a separate section of the site—the XPRT archive.

Recently, as we discussed XPRT plans for 2025, it became clear that we needed to add AIXPRT and CloudXPRT to the archive. Both benchmarks represent landmark efforts toward our ongoing goal of providing cutting-edge performance assessment tools, but even though a few tech press publications and OEM labs experimented with them, neither benchmark gained enough widespread adoption to justify their continued support. As a result, we decided to focus our resources elsewhere and halt development on both benchmarks. Since then, ongoing updates to their respective software components and target platforms have rendered them largely unusable. By archiving both benchmarks, we hope to avoid any future confusion for visitors who may otherwise try to use them.

Over the coming weeks, we’ll be moving the AIXPRT and CloudXPRT installation packages to the XPRT archive page. We’re grateful to everyone who has used AIXPRT and CloudXPRT in the past, and we apologize for any inconvenience this change may cause.

If you have any questions or concerns about access to either of these benchmarks—or about anything else related to the XPRTs, please let us know

Justin

February 2025 WebXPRT 4 browser performance comparisons

Once or twice per year, we refresh our ongoing series of WebXPRT comparison tests to see if software version updates have reordered the performance rankings of popular web browsers. We published our most recent comparison last June, when we used WebXPRT 4 to compare the performance of five browsers—Brave, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera—on a Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 3. When assessing performance differences, it’s worth noting that all the browsers—except for Firefox—are built on a Chromium foundation. In the last round of tests, the scores were very tight, with a difference of only four percent between the last-place browser (Brave) and the winner (Chrome). Firefox’s score landed squarely in the middle of the pack.

Recently, we conducted a new set of tests to see how performance scores may have changed. To maintain continuity with our last comparison, we stuck with the same ThinkPad T14s as our reference system. That laptop is still in line with current mid-range laptops, so our comparison scores are likely to fall within the range of scores we would see from a typical user today. The ThinkPad is equipped with an Intel Core i7-1270P processor and 16 GB of RAM, and it’s running Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2 (22631.4890).

Before testing, we installed all current Windows updates, and we updated each of the browsers to the latest available stable version. After the update process was complete, we turned off updates to prevent any interference with test runs. We ran WebXPRT 4 five times on each of the five browsers. In Figure 1 below, each browser’s score is the median of the five test runs.

In this round of tests, the gap widened a bit between first and last place scores, with a difference of just over six percent between the lowest median score of 303 (Brave) and the highest median score of 322 (Firefox).

Figure 1: The median scores from running WebXPRT 4 five times with each browser on the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s Gen 3.

In this round of tests, the distribution of scores indicates that most users would not see a significant performance difference if they switched between the latest versions of these browsers. The one exception may be a change from the latest version of Brave to the latest version of Firefox. Even then, the quality of your browsing experience will often depend on other factors. The types of things you do on the web (e.g., gaming, media consumption, or multi-tab browsing), the type and number of extensions you’ve installed, and how frequently the browsers issue updates and integrate new technologies—among other things—can all affect browser performance over time. It’s important to keep such variables in mind when thinking about how browser performance comparison results may translate to your everyday web experience.

Have you tried using WebXPRT 4 in your own browser performance comparison? If so, we’d love to hear about it! Also, please let us know if there are other types of WebXPRT comparisons you’d like to see!

Justin

Check out the other XPRTs:

Forgot your password?