Benchmark: drawimage vs putimagedata 3b

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="canvas" width="1400" height="1400"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var canvas = document.getElementById('canvas');
var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");

var cacheG = document.createElement('canvas');
var cacheD = cacheG.getContext('2d');

cacheG.width = 1200;
cacheG.height = 1200;

cacheD.beginPath();
cacheD.fillStyle = '#000';
cacheD.arc(600, 600, 600, 0, Math.PI * 2, true);
cacheD.fill();

var d = cacheD.getImageData(0,0,1200,1200)

Tests:

drawImage
ctx.drawImage(cacheG, 6, 6);
putImageData
ctx.putImageData(d, 6, 6);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
drawImage
putImageData

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:144.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/144.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 144 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
drawImage	48886.0 Ops/sec
putImageData	163.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition represents two microbenchmarks: `drawImage` and `putImageData`. These tests aim to measure the performance difference between drawing an image using `drawImage()` and putting image data into context using `putImageData()`.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a temporary canvas element (`cacheG`) with a size of 1200x1200. It then sets up a 2D drawing context on this canvas (`cacheD`). The code draws a black circle on the canvas using the `fillStyle` and `arc()` methods.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes an `<canvas>` element with a width and height of 1400 pixels, which will be used as the container for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **drawImage**: This test case measures the performance of drawing an image using `ctx.drawImage(cacheG, 6, 6);`. The image is drawn at position (6, 6) on the main canvas.
2. **putImageData**: This test case measures the performance of putting image data into context using `ctx.putImageData(d, 6, 6);`. The image data (`d`) is obtained from the temporary canvas (`cacheD`) and drawn at position (6, 6) on the main canvas.

**Library: Canvas**

Both tests use the HTML5 Canvas API, which provides a way to draw graphics in web pages. The Canvas API allows developers to create images, manipulate pixel data, and perform various drawing operations using JavaScript.

In this benchmark, the `Canvas` library is used to:

* Create temporary canvases (`cacheG`) for image data
* Draw shapes (in this case, a circle) on these canvases using 2D drawing contexts

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

The tests use a special JavaScript feature called **`ImageData` objects**, which represent pixel data in the form of a 1D array. The `ImageData` object is used to store the pixel data from the temporary canvas (`cacheD`) and pass it to the `putImageData()` method for drawing.

**Pros and Cons:**

The pros of using `drawImage()` over `putImageData()` are:

* **Faster performance**: Drawing an image using `drawImage()` is generally faster than putting image data into context.
* **Less overhead**: `drawImage()` has less overhead compared to `putImageData()`, as it doesn't require manipulating pixel data.

However, the cons of using `drawImage()` over `putImageData()` are:

* **More complex code**: Using `drawImage()` can lead to more complex code, as developers need to handle image loading and caching.
* **Less control**: With `drawImage()`, developers have less control over the drawing process compared to `putImageData()`.

On the other hand, `putImageData()` provides:

* **More control**: Developers have fine-grained control over pixel data manipulation using `putImageData()`.
* **Flexibility**: `putImageData()` can be used for more complex graphics and animations.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to testing performance differences between `drawImage()` and `putImageData()` include:

* Using WebGL or WebGPU for 3D rendering
* Testing the performance of different image compression algorithms
* Measuring the performance of other drawing operations, such as `fillRect()`, `strokeText()`, etc.

Keep in mind that the choice of test case and benchmarking approach depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

drawimage vs putimagedata 3b (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: drawImage vs putImageData

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

drawImage

putImageData

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):