Benchmark: sum vs multiply - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

sum
let j=0; for(let i=0; i<10000000; i++){ j +=2; }
mul
let j=0; for(let i=0; i<10000000; i++){ j = j*2; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sum
mul

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the script preparation code and HTML preparation code are not specified. This allows users to create their own benchmark scripts and share them with others on MeasureThat.net.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"sum"`**
	* Benchmark Definition: `let j=0; for(let i=0; i<10000000; i++) { j +=2; }`
	* This script initializes a variable `j` to 0 and then loops 10 million times, adding 2 to the value of `j` in each iteration. The purpose is to measure the time it takes to execute this simple arithmetic operation.
2. **"mul"`**
	* Benchmark Definition: `let j=0; for(let i=0; i<10000000; i++) { j = j*2; }`
	* This script initializes a variable `j` to 0 and then loops 10 million times, multiplying the value of `j` by 2 in each iteration. The purpose is to measure the time it takes to execute this simple multiplication operation.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two different arithmetic operations:

1. **Addition (`+`)**: In the "sum" test case, the script adds 2 to the value of `j` in each iteration.
2. **Multiplication (`*`)**: In the "mul" test case, the script multiplies the value of `j` by 2 in each iteration.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

1. **Addition (Sum)**
	* Pros: Addition is a simple operation that can be easily optimized using techniques like cache blocking or SIMD instructions.
	* Cons: Addition operations may not be as computationally intensive as multiplication operations, which might affect the accuracy of the benchmark results.
2. **Multiplication (Multiply)**
	* Pros: Multiplication operations are often more computationally intensive than addition operations, making them a good choice for benchmarks that aim to measure performance.
	* Cons: Multiplication operations can be harder to optimize using cache blocking or SIMD instructions.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no library used in these benchmark test cases. However, if we were to analyze the scripts more closely, we might notice some subtle optimizations:

1. **No explicit loop bounds**: The loops use a `for` loop with an implicit bound, which can be optimized by some JavaScript engines.
2. **No explicit type declarations**: The scripts do not include any explicit type declarations, which means that JavaScript's dynamic typing will apply.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create your own benchmark test cases on MeasureThat.net, you could use different arithmetic operations or more complex algorithms. Some ideas:

1. **Subtraction and division**: Test the performance of subtraction and division operations using similar scripts.
2. **Matrix multiplication**: Create a script that performs matrix multiplication using nested loops, which would be more computationally intensive than the "mul" test case.
3. **Bitwise operations**: Test the performance of bitwise operations like bit shifts, AND, OR, and XOR.

Keep in mind that when creating your own benchmark test cases, it's essential to ensure that they are representative of real-world use cases and can provide accurate measurements of performance.

Related benchmarks:

sum vs multiply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: sum vs mul

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

sum

mul

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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