Benchmark: Math.pow vs ** with Random, float exponent

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>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
**

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
pow	90834264.0 Ops/sec
**	95829584.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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 ** with Random, float exponent (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs **

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

**

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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