Performance & Efficiency
nXCC is engineered from the ground up for high performance, low latency, and exceptional resource efficiency. This focus ensures that the platform is not the bottleneck in your cross-chain workflows and provides a cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution.
Benchmark Methodology
Section titled “Benchmark Methodology”Our performance benchmarks are conducted on standardized, cost-effective hardware to reflect realistic production deployments.
- Hardware: A standard container with 2 CPU cores and 2GB of RAM.
- Setup: To isolate the performance of the nXCC node itself, the Web3 gateway (Anvil) is co-resident with the node, eliminating external blockchain network latency as a variable.
Key Performance Metrics
Section titled “Key Performance Metrics”The results demonstrate that nXCC introduces minimal overhead, delivering performance suitable for demanding, real-time applications.
| Metric Category | Metric | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Resource Usage | Base Usage (Idle Node) | ~0% CPU, 6 MB RAM |
| Idle Worker Footprint (139 workers) | 79 MB RAM | |
| Web3 Event Latency | Mean Latency | 14.39 ms |
| p99 Latency | 17 ms | |
| Throughput | Web3 Event Throughput | 1,130.98 events/sec |
| HTTP Event Throughput (100 req/s load) | 3,224.45 req/sec | |
| Worker Capacity | Polling Workers (10ms interval) | 215 workers |
A Greener Alternative for Web3
Section titled “A Greener Alternative for Web3”A core design goal of nXCC is to provide a high-performance, low-energy alternative to existing cross-chain solutions, aligning with the goals of the EU Green Deal.
Our “almost consensus-free” architecture, which relies on a small number of TEE-secured nodes rather than a large network of validators, is orders of magnitude more energy-efficient per message than traditional interoperability protocols.
Comparative Energy Efficiency
Section titled “Comparative Energy Efficiency”The following table compares the estimated energy cost per message for nXCC against major incumbent networks.
| Network | Relative Energy per Message |
|---|---|
| nXCC (Ours) | 1x |
| Chainlink CCIP | ~4.5x more |
| Axelar | ~4.8x more |
| Wormhole | ~9.8x more |
This analysis is based on our internal benchmarks and publicly available data on network size and throughput for incumbent protocols, assuming standard server hardware power consumption.