Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.pow vs ** with Random, float exponent
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pow vs **
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
pow
var tmp = Math.pow(Math.random(), 1.8);
**
var tmp = Math.random() ** 1.8;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pow
**
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year 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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=614498" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
**
95.8M/s
pow
90.8M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
**
95,829,584 Ops/sec
pow
90,834,264 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark measures the performance of two ways to calculate a floating-point number raised to a power: 1. Using `Math.pow()` 2. Using exponentiation operator (`**`) Both methods are being applied with random values ( generated using `Math.random()` ) and a fixed exponent ( 1.8 ). The goal is to determine which method performs better. **Options Being Compared** There are two options being compared: A) **Using `Math.pow()`**: This method takes two arguments, the base number and the power, and returns the result of raising the base to the power. B) **Using exponentiation operator (`**`)**: This operator is a shorthand for raising the left operand to the power of the right operand. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Using `Math.pow()`** * Pros: + Wide support across browsers and platforms + More explicit syntax, making it easier to read and understand * Cons: + May be slower due to additional function call overhead 2. **Using exponentiation operator (`**`)** * Pros: + Faster execution speed due to compile-time optimization + More concise syntax, making it easier to write and read * Cons: + Less explicit syntax, which can lead to misunderstandings or errors + Not supported in older browsers or platforms **Library and Special JavaScript Features** In this benchmark, there is no specific library being used. However, note that the `Math.random()` function returns a random floating-point number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). This is not specific to any particular library but is a standard feature in JavaScript. There are also no special JavaScript features being tested or used beyond what's already mentioned. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to test alternative exponentiation methods, you could consider using: 1. **`Math.exp()`**: While not a direct alternative to `**`, it can be used for calculating exponentials with base e (approximately 2.718). 2. **Custom implementations**: You could write custom code to implement exponentiation using loops or other mathematical algorithms. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not offer significant performance advantages over the built-in `Math.pow()` or `**` methods, especially considering the overhead of additional function calls or loops.
Related benchmarks
Math.pow() vs exponentiation operator
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?