Benchmark: Math.random vs performance.now

Tests:

Math.random
Math.random()
performance.now
performance.now()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.random
performance.now

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.random	79715680.0 Ops/sec
performance.now	6988992.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares two functions: `Math.random()` and `performance.now()`. These two functions are used in different contexts, and their performance can vary depending on various factors such as hardware, software, and programming language.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we're comparing the performance of two options:

1. **`Math.random()`**: This function generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). It's used in various applications, including games, simulations, and data processing.
2. **`performance.now()`**: This function returns the current timestamp in milliseconds since the browser's view timer began. It's commonly used to measure elapsed time, especially when dealing with intervals, timeouts, or animations.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   `Math.random()`: The pros are that it's often faster than `performance.now()` because it can be optimized by the JavaScript engine for certain use cases (e.g., generating random numbers for game development). However, its accuracy decreases as the number of decimal places requested increases.
*   `performance.now()`: The cons are that this function is less suitable for use in applications requiring high precision or performance. On the other hand, its high resolution and low latency make it ideal for measuring time intervals.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there's no explicit library mentioned. However, both functions are built-in JavaScript methods, which means they don't require any external libraries to function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It only involves the standard `Math.random()` and `performance.now()` functions.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative ways to measure performance include:

*   **`Date.now()`**: Similar to `performance.now()`, but it returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970 (UTC).
*   **`setTimeout()` and `clearTimeout()`**: These can be used to create time intervals, which is useful for animations or scheduling tasks.
*   **Web APIs like Web Workers** or **WebRTC**, which provide low-level performance measurements that might not be covered by standard JavaScript functions.

In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of `Math.random()` and `performance.now()`. While `math.random()` can offer better performance in certain contexts, it may sacrifice accuracy at times. `performance.now()`, on the other hand, provides high resolution and low latency but might not be suitable for applications requiring high precision or performance.

Related benchmarks:

Math.random vs performance.now (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.random vs performance.now

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.random

performance.now

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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