One of the core principles of
the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community is a commitment to valuing the feedback
of both community members and the larger group of testers that use the XPRTs on
a regular basis. That feedback helps us to ensure that as the XPRTs continue to
grow and evolve, the resources that 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, user interface features, results presentation, and the removal or inclusion 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
approach the second half of 2022 and begin planning for 2023, we’re asking to
hear your ideas about new XPRTs—or new features for existing
XPRTs. Are you aware of hardware form factors, software platforms, or prominent
applications that are difficult or impossible to evaluate using existing performance
benchmarks? Are there new technologies we should be incorporating into existing
XPRTs via new workloads? Can you recommend ways to improve any of the XPRTs or
XPRT-related tools such as results viewers?
We are 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!
Testers
new to the XPRT benchmarks may not know about one of the free resources we
offer. The XPRT results database currently holds more than 3,000 test results
from over 120 sources, including major tech review publications around the
world, OEMs, and independent testers. It offers a wealth of current and
historical performance data across all the XPRT benchmarks and hundreds of
devices.
We update the results
database several times a week, adding selected results from our own internal
lab testing, reliable tech media sources, and end-of-test user submissions.
(After you run one of the XPRTs, you can choose to submit the results, but they
don’t automatically appear in the database.) Before adding a result, we
evaluate whether the score makes sense and is consistent with general
expectations, which we can do only when we have sufficient system information details.
For that reason, we ask testers to disclose as much hardware and software
information as possible when publishing or submitting a result.
We encourage visitors to our site to explore the XPRT results database. There are three primary ways to do so. The first is by visiting the main BenchmarkXPRT results browser, which displays results entries for all of the XPRT benchmarks in chronological order (see the screenshot below). You can narrow the results by selecting a benchmark from the drop-down menu and can type values, such as vendor or the name of a tech publication, into the free-form filter field. For results we’ve produced in our lab, clicking “PT” in the Source column takes you to a page with additional disclosure information for the test system. For sources outside our lab, clicking the source name takes you to the original article or review that contains the result.
The second way to access our published results is by visiting the results page for an individual XPRT benchmark. Go the page of the benchmark that interests you, and look for the blue View Results button. Clicking it takes you to a page that displays results for only that benchmark. You can use the free-form filter on the page to filter those results, and can use the Benchmarks drop-down menu to jump to the other individual XPRT results pages.
The third way to view
information in our results database is with the WebXPRT 4 results viewer.
The viewer provides an information-packed, interactive environment in which
users can explore data from the curated set of WebXPRT 4 results we’ve
published on our site. To learn more about the viewer’s capabilities and
features, check out this blog post
from March.
We hope you’ll take
some time to browse the information in our results database. We welcome your feedback
about what you’d like to see in the future and suggestions for improvement. Our
database contains the XPRT scores that we’ve gathered, but we publish them as a
resource for you. Let us know
what you think!
Many of our blog
readers first encountered the XPRTs when reading about a specific benchmark,
such as WebXPRT, in a device
review. Because these folks might be unfamiliar with our other benchmarks, we
like to occasionally “reintroduce” individual XPRTs. This week, we invite you
to get to know HDXPRT.
HDXPRT, which
stands for High-Definition Experience & Performance Ratings Test, was the
first benchmark published by the HDXPRT Development Community, which later
became the BenchmarkXPRT Development Community. HDXPRT 4, the latest version, evaluates
the performance of Windows 10 and Windows 11 devices while handling real-world
media tasks such as photo editing, video conversion, and music editing. HDXPRT
uses real commercial applications, such Photoshop and MediaEspresso, to
complete its workloads. The benchmark then produces easy-to-understand results
that are relevant to buyers shopping for new Windows systems.
The HDXPRT 4
setup process takes about 30 minutes on most systems. The length of the test
can vary significantly depending on the speed of the system, but for most PCs that
are less than a few years old, a full three-iteration test cycle takes under two
hours.
HDXPRT is a useful
tool for anyone who wants to evaluate the real-world, content-creation
capabilities of a Windows PC. To see test scores from a variety of Windows
devices, go to HDXPRT.com and
click View Results.
Want to run HDXPRT?
Download HDXPRT from
HDXPRT.com. The HDXPRT user manual provides information
on minimum system requirements, as well as step-by-step instructions for
configuring your system and kicking off a test.
Want to dig into the details?
The HDXPRT
source code is available upon request. If you’d like to access the source code,
please send your request to benchmarkxprtsupport@principledtechnologies.com. Build
instructions are also available.
If you haven’t used HDXPRT before, give it a shot and let us know what you think!
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.
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.
Last March, we discussed the Chrome OS team’s original announcement that they would be phasing out support for Chrome Apps altogether in June 2021, and would shift their focus to Chrome extensions and Progressive Web Apps. The Chrome OS team eventually extended support for existing Chrome Apps through June 2022, but as of this week, we see no indication that they will further extend support for Chrome Apps published with general developer accounts. If the end-of-life schedule for Chrome Apps does not change in the next few months, both CrXPRT 2 and CrXPRT 2015 will stop working on new versions of Chrome OS at some point in June.
To maintain CrXPRT
functionality past June, we would need to rebuild the app completely—either as
a Progressive Web App or in some other form. For this reason, we want to
reassess our approach to Chrome OS testing, and investigate which features and
technologies to include in a new Chrome OS benchmark. Our current goal is to
gather feedback and conduct exploratory research over the next few months, and begin
developing an all-new Chrome OS benchmark for publication by the end of the
year.
While we will discuss ideas for this new Chrome OS benchmark in future blog posts, we welcome ideas from CrXPRT users now. What features or workloads would you like the new benchmark to retain? Would you like us to remove any components from the existing benchmark? Does the battery life test in its current form suit your needs? If you have any thoughts about these questions or any other aspects of Chrome OS benchmarking, please let us know!
Recently,
we heard from a BenchmarkXPRT Development Community member who was testing
Chromebooks in their lab. On a few of the Chromebooks, they saw sporadic CrXPRT
2 battery life test failures where CrXPRT 2 would successfully complete a
battery life test and produce a result for the initial run, but then fail at
the end of later runs.
After
a considerable amount of troubleshooting, they determined that the issue seemed
to be related to the way some systems automatically shut down before the
battery is completely exhausted, and the way some systems will automatically
boot up once the tester plugs in the power adapter for charging. This member found
that when they added a few system configuration steps before battery life tests
and made slight changes to their post-test routine, the systems that had
previously experienced consistent failures would successfully complete battery
life tests and produce results.
The
added steps are quick and straightforward, and we decided to add them to the
Configuring the test device and Running the tests sections of the CrXPRT 2 user manual.
We hope this updated guidance will help to prevent future frustration for
CrXPRT 2 testers.
If you have any questions or comments about the CrXPRT 2 battery life test, please feel free to contact us!
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.
