Benchmark: window.innerWidth vs window.screen.availWidth

HTML Preparation code:

Test

Tests:

availWidth
window.screen.availWidth > 640;
innerWidth
window.innerWidth > 640

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
availWidth
innerWidth

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
availWidth	5156006.5 Ops/sec
innerWidth	1771284.9 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 provided benchmark and explain what is tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, library usage, special JavaScript features or syntax, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition represents two different test cases:

1. `window.screen.availWidth > 640`: This test case checks if the available width of the screen is greater than 640 pixels.
2. `window.innerWidth > 640`: This test case checks if the inner width (usually the width of the visible area) of the window is greater than 640 pixels.

**Options Compared**
The two options being compared are:

1. `window.screen.availWidth`
2. `window.innerWidth`

These two properties represent different aspects of the screen or window:

* `availWidth` refers to the total available width of the screen, which includes any borders, scroll bars, and other non-visual elements.
* `innerWidth`, on the other hand, represents the width of the visible area of the window.

**Pros and Cons**

Using `window.screen.availWidth` has its pros:

* It may return a more accurate value if the screen is not fully visible (e.g., due to scroll bars).
* However, it also includes non-visual elements, which might affect performance or calculations that rely on only visual content.

In contrast, using `window.innerWidth` has its cons:

* It might be less accurate if there are scroll bars or other non-visual elements on the screen.
* But, it's often a more straightforward and reliable choice when you're working with visible areas.

**Library Usage**
There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, some browsers might use internal libraries to manage window properties, but that would not be relevant to this specific benchmark.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between `window.screen.availWidth` and `window.innerWidth`, consider the following:

* If you're working with screen sizes, available space, or layout calculations that include non-visual elements, `availWidth` might be a better choice.
* If you're working with visible areas, window positions, or event handling related to scrolling, `innerWidth` is likely a better fit.

**Alternatives**

If you need more advanced screen measurement capabilities, consider using:

1. Media Queries: These are used in CSS to apply styles based on specific conditions like screen size.
2. Screen resolution APIs (e.g., `screen.width`, `screen.height`): While not directly related to window properties, these can provide more detailed information about the screen or display.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own set of use cases and might require different approaches depending on your specific requirements.

In summary, this benchmark compares two common JavaScript methods for determining available screen width versus visible window width. By understanding what each option represents and considering their pros and cons, you can make informed decisions about which one to use in your code.

Related benchmarks:

window.innerWidth vs window.screen.availWidth (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: availWidth vs innerWidth

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

availWidth

innerWidth

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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