Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
matchMedia (multiple queries) vs clientWidth vs innerWidth
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
clientWidth vs matchMedia vs innerWidth
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
Test
Tests:
clientWidth
document.documentElement.clientWidth > 640;
matchMedia
window.matchMedia("(min-width: 1280px)").matches || window.matchMedia("(min-width: 1024px)").matches || window.matchMedia("(min-width: 960px)").matches || window.matchMedia("(min-width: 768px)").matches || window.matchMedia("(min-width: 568px)").matches
innerWidth
window.innerWidth > 640
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
clientWidth
matchMedia
innerWidth
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Overview** The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches to detect changes in screen width: 1. `clientWidth` 2. `matchMedia` with multiple queries 3. `innerWidth` **What is tested** * `clientWidth`: This property returns the width of the client area (the visible area of the window) in pixels. It's used by default when `document.documentElement.clientWidth` or `window.innerWidth` are not available. * `matchMedia`: This API allows you to query specific media queries, such as `(min-width: 1280px)`, and get a result indicating whether the condition is met. In this benchmark, multiple queries are chained together to test performance with varying levels of complexity. * `innerWidth`: This property returns the width of the window's inner area in pixels. **Options compared** The three options are being compared in terms of their execution speed (measured in executions per second). The goal is to determine which approach is the fastest, most efficient, and reliable. **Pros and cons of each approach:** * `clientWidth`: + Pros: Simple, easy to implement, and widely supported. + Cons: May not be as precise or accurate as other methods, especially for complex screen width calculations. * `matchMedia`: + Pros: More accurate and precise than `clientWidth`, especially for media queries. Can also handle more complex conditions. + Cons: May require more CPU cycles to execute, potentially impacting performance. Also, may not be supported by older browsers or devices. * `innerWidth`: + Pros: Similar to `clientWidth`, simple and easy to implement. More reliable than `clientWidth`. + Cons: May not be as accurate as `matchMedia` for specific media queries. **Library usage** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that modern browsers like Chrome likely use various internal APIs or libraries to support these features. **Special JS feature or syntax** None mentioned in the provided information.
Related benchmarks:
cached matchMedia
client width vs matchmedia
matchMedia vs clientWidth vs innerWidth
8x addEventListener('resize') VS matchMedia()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?