EUC Score Test Results

Impact of Different Network Conditions on the FRP Protocol 

Test Goal

Measure the impact of network packet loss (0%, 2%, 5%), network round trip time (10ms, 110ms, 310ms), and network bandwidth (100mbps, 8mbps, 2mbps) on the Dizzion FRP protocol. The comparison clips show unconstrained network conditions as a baseline on the left (yellow) and constrained network conditions on the right (red).

 

Selected Sync Player Clips

Simload Thumbnails | Links	Network | Links [Charts] | Views	Observations
	Packet Loss: 0.0% vs 2.0% SL1-MSEdgeAquariumWebGL [STD12] SL1-MSEdgeAquariumWebGL [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	High packet loss rate causes sporadic stuttering.
	Packet Loss: 0.0% vs 5.0% SL1-MSEdgeAquariumWebGL [STD12] SL1-MSEdgeAquariumWebGL [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	Very high packet loss rate causes more stuttering.
	Packet Loss: 0.0% vs 5.0% SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	Very high packet loss rate causes significant stuttering.
	Packet Loss: 0.0% vs 5.0% SL1-NotepadMove [STD12] SL1-NotepadMove [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	Very high packet loss rate causes significant stuttering.
	Round Trip Time: 10ms vs 110ms SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [STD12] SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	High RTT does not change image quality and frame rate.
	Round Trip Time: 10ms vs 310ms SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [STD12] SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	Very high RTT does not change image quality and frame rate.
	Bandwidth: 100mbps vs 8mbps SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	Low bandwidth introduces compression artifacts.
	Bandwidth: 100mbps vs 2mbps SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [STD12] SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [FRP12] Side-by-Side View	Very low bandwidth affects image quality and frame rate.

 

Summary of Test Observations

Adding network constraints influences the visual quality of Dizzion Cloud PC sessions connected via FRP. A higher amount of Packet loss introduces stuttering in animations and videos. Adding a higher amount of network latency doesn't have an impact on graphics quality, but due to the higher user interface response times it's much harder for a user to interact with the desktop and the apps. Reducing the network bandwidth results in compression artifacts and reduced frame rates in many test workloads.

 

Test Setup Details

 

Back to top

Comparison between Dizzion FRP and Microsoft RDP 11 (Classic) 

Test Goal

Compare a Dizzion Cloud PC and a Microsoft Remote Desktop (Classic RDP) under different network conditions.

 

Selected Sync Player Clips

Simload Thumbnails | Links	Network | Links [Charts] | Views	Observations
	Unconstrained: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgeGifScroll1 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	No visual difference, but FRP requires less bandwidth.
	Unconstrained: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgeHtmlScroll [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Smoother scrolling with FRP, but higher bandwidth required.
	Unconstrained: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgePhotoGalleryJS [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Smoother animation with FRP, but higher bandwidth required.
	2% Packet Loss: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-NotepadMove [STD12] Side-by-Side View	The app window moves smoother in the FRP session.
	5% Packet Loss: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-NotepadMove [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Freeze frames with RDP, only some stuttering with FRP.
	5% Packet Loss: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgePhotoGalleryJS [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Freeze frames with RDP, only some stuttering with FRP.
	5% Packet Loss: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Freeze frames with RDP, only some stuttering with FRP.
	110ms RTT: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgeGifScroll2 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Smooth animated GIFs with FRP, but stuttering with RDP.
	310ms RTT: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	No visual difference under very high latency conditions, but FRP requires more bandwidth.
	310ms RTT: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgePhotoGalleryJS [STD12] Side-by-Side View	No visual difference under very high latency conditions, but FRP requires more bandwidth.
	8mbps Bandwidth: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Lower video quality and reduced frame rates with RDP.
	2mbps Bandwidth: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-MSEdgePhotoGalleryJS [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Better image quality with FRP.
	2mbps Bandwidth: FRP vs Classic RDP SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	More compression artifacts with RDP.

 

Summary of Test Observations

Without network constraints, many workloads don't show a big visual difference between FRP and Classic RDP. In some cases, RDP requires less bandwidth than FRP, but there are exceptions. In some workloads, FRP shows better image and animation quality. FRP is better able to handle packet loss. Even with increasing latency, FRP shows good performance, but often requires more bandwidth. Low network bandwidth also poses no problems for FRP. Compared to RDP, FRP generally offers better image quality under low bandwidth conditions. Across almost all workloads and regardless of network conditions, the FRP session requires more CPU capacity than the RDP session.

 

Test Setup Details

 

Back to top

Comparison between Dizzion FRP and Citrix HDX 

Test Goal

Compare a Dizzion Cloud PC and a Citrix Cloud PC (Windows 365) under different network conditions.

Important: The test results for Citrix for Windows 365 presented here are underwhelming. The reason is that the out-of-the-box settings of the HDX version used during the test runs gives higher refresh rates a higher priority than better image quality. Further reference tests using newer versions of the HDX protocol will be conducted in the future to verify the results.

 

Selected Sync Player Clips

Simload Thumbnails | Links	Network | Links [Charts] | Views	Observations
	Unconstrained: FRP vs HDX SL1-MSEdgeVideoConf4 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	No visual difference, but FRP requires less bandwidth.
	2% Packet Loss: FRP vs HDX SL1-NotepadMove [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Smooth animation on both sides, FRP requires more bandwidth.
	5% Packet Loss: FRP vs HDX SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	HDX session shows block artifacts, FRP requires more bandwidth.
	110ms RTT: FRP vs HDX SL1-MSEdgeGifScroll2 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Smooth animated GIFs on both sides, FRP requires more bandwidth. In contrast, the CPU requirement is higher in the HDX session.
	310ms RTT: FRP vs HDX SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	No visual difference, but FRP requires more bandwidth.
	310ms RTT: FRP vs HDX SL1-MSEdgePhotoGalleryJS [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Animation in HDX session is struggling.
	8mbps Bandwidth: FRP vs HDX SL1-MSEdgeVideoGrid9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Lower video quality with HDX.
	2mbps Bandwidth: FRP vs HDX SL1-MSEdgeFishbowlHTML5 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Better animation quality with FRP.
	2mbps Bandwidth: FRP vs HDX SL1-MSEdgeFishbowlHTML5 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	Better image and transition quality with FRP.
	2mbps Bandwidth: FRP vs HDX SL1-RollercoasterDX9 [STD12] Side-by-Side View	More compression artifacts with HDX.

 

Summary of Test Observations

Without network constraints, most workloads don't show a visual difference between FRP and HDX. In most cases, HDX requires less bandwidth than FRP, but there are exceptions. Under limited network conditions, most FRP test runs also show better image and animation quality, but higher bandwidth requirements. With few exceptions, there is no significant difference in CPU capacity requirements when workloads run in either an FRP or an HDX session.

 

Test Setup Details

 

Back to top