Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.pow versus multiply, with or without semicolons!
(version: 0)
Difference between Math.pow and generic multiplication. Also semicolon vs no semicolon.
Comparing performance of:
pow, w/ semicolon vs pow, w/o semicolon vs mult, w/ semicolon vs mult, w/o semicolon
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
pow, w/ semicolon
var x = Math.pow(54,2);
pow, w/o semicolon
var y = Math.pow(54,2)
mult, w/ semicolon
var a = 54 * 54;
mult, w/o semicolon
var b = 54 * 54
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pow, w/ semicolon
pow, w/o semicolon
mult, w/ semicolon
mult, w/o semicolon
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 JSON and explain what is tested in each benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The Benchmark Definition represents the logic to be tested. In this case, there are four test cases: * `Math.pow(x, 2)` with and without semicolons * Generic multiplication (`x * x`) with and without semicolons **Options Compared** The benchmarks compare two options: 1. **`Math.pow(x, 2)`**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that raises the first argument to the power of the second argument. 2. **Generic Multiplication (`x * x`)**: This is a simple multiplication operation without any built-in functions. **Pros and Cons** * Using `Math.pow(x, 2)` has some advantages: + It's a more concise way to perform exponentiation. + It can handle negative numbers and fractions correctly. * However, it also has some disadvantages: + It's slower than generic multiplication for large numbers due to the overhead of the function call. + Some older browsers might not support `Math.pow` or have performance issues with it. * Generic multiplication (`x * x`) is simpler and more efficient but might be less readable and error-prone. **Library Used** None. The benchmarks use only built-in JavaScript functions and operations. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special features or syntax used in these benchmarks. They focus solely on the performance difference between `Math.pow` and generic multiplication. **Other Considerations** Other factors that might affect the results include: * Compiler optimizations * Browser-specific extensions or plugins * System resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) * Network connectivity **Alternatives** If you wanted to benchmark other approaches, here are some alternatives: * Using a library like `numjs` or `lodash` for numerical computations * Comparing different arithmetic operators like `Math.sqrt()` vs. using the `**` operator * Testing different data types (e.g., integers, floats, complex numbers) * Measuring performance with different input sizes or distributions Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript performance is inherently complex and can be influenced by many factors. The results should be taken as a general indication of performance differences rather than absolute measures.
Related benchmarks:
Math.pow versus multiply, with or without semicolons.
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication pow 4
math.pow vs multiply vs exponentiation
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?