Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Multiply Comparison
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
Standard multiply vs Math.imul()
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var ints = [], prod, i; for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { ints[i] = Math.random() * Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER | 0; }
Tests:
Standard multiply
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { prod = ints[i] * ints[i]; }
Math.imul()
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { prod = Math.imul(ints[i], ints[i]); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Standard multiply
Math.imul()
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 140 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=612927" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Math.imul()
3K/s
Standard multiply
3K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Math.imul()
3,067 Ops/sec
Standard multiply
3,043 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to multiply two integers in JavaScript: the standard multiplication operator (`*`) and `Math.imul()`. The test case is designed to simulate a large number of multiplications, making it suitable for measuring performance under load. **Script Preparation Code** The script preparation code initializes an array `ints` with 100,000 random integers between 0 (inclusive) and `Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER` (exclusive). This step sets up the test environment by creating a pool of numbers to be multiplied together. ```javascript var ints = [], prod, i; for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { ints[i] = Math.random() * Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER | 0; } ``` **Options Compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **Standard multiplication operator (`*`)**: This is the most common way to multiply integers in JavaScript. It uses a simple iterative algorithm, but its performance can degrade under load due to the overhead of function calls and potential arithmetic overflows. 2. **`Math.imul()`**: This method provides a more efficient way to perform bit-level multiplication, which can be beneficial for integer-heavy operations like this benchmark. `Math.imul()` is implemented in native code, making it faster than standard multiplication. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Standard multiplication operator (`*`)**: + Pros: Easy to use, widely supported. + Cons: Can perform poorly under load due to function call overhead and potential arithmetic overflows. * `Math.imul()`: + Pros: More efficient for bit-level operations like this benchmark. Implemented in native code for better performance. + Cons: Less widely used than standard multiplication operator. **Library/Functionality** In the test case, `Math.imul()` is a built-in JavaScript function that provides a more efficient way to perform bit-level multiplication. It's implemented in native code and optimized for performance. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** This benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's commonly used. However, if you're interested in testing other features like async/await, Promises, or modern syntax (e.g., arrow functions), those could be added to the script preparation code or modified in the individual test cases. **Other Alternatives** If you want to extend this benchmark or explore alternative approaches, consider adding more options, such as: * Using a specific library like `big-integer` for arbitrary-precision arithmetic. * Implementing custom multiplication algorithms (e.g., using bitwise operations). * Adding support for floating-point numbers. * Measuring the performance of other built-in JavaScript functions, like `Math.sqrt()` or `String.prototype.repeat()`.
Related benchmarks
bigint-vs-string
Array.Sort vs Math.Min-Max
Set.has v.s Array.includes
array math.max (3 variants) vs for loop (4 variants)
array math.max (3 variants) vs for loop (5 variants)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?