Benchmark: Math.pow vs ** vs * but eleven

Tests:

pow
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 11);
**
var tmp = 6 ** 11;
*
var tmp = 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 6;

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:

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.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares three different ways to calculate `6^11` (six raised to the power of eleven): using `Math.pow()`, using exponentiation operator (`**`), and multiplication (`*`). The test aims to determine which method is fastest on a specific hardware configuration.

**Options compared:**

1. **Math.pow()**: This method uses the `pow()` function in JavaScript's Math object, which calculates the power of a number using the `exp()` and `ln()` functions under the hood.
2. **Exponentiation operator (`**`)**: In JavaScript, the exponentiation operator is introduced in ECMAScript 2016 (ES6) as a part of the new syntax for exponentiation. It's more readable and concise than other methods but still compiles to `Math.pow()`.
3. **Multiplication (`*`)**: This method involves repeated multiplication of 6 by itself, which is less efficient due to the overhead of repeated function calls.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Math.pow()**: Pros:
	* Well-established and widely supported.
	* Can handle fractional exponents.
Cons:
	* May be slower than other methods due to the `exp()` and `ln()` functions used under the hood.
2. **Exponentiation operator (`**`)**: Pros:
	+ More readable and concise syntax.
	+ Less overhead compared to repeated multiplication.
Cons:
	+ Only supported in ECMAScript 2016 (ES6) and later versions.
3. **Multiplication (`*`)**: Pros: None notable, as it's the least efficient method.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark doesn't account for potential overheads like function call overhead, variable storage, or garbage collection.
* Browser support might affect the results, especially if older browsers don't support ES6 features.

**Libraries and special JS features:**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. The JavaScript standard library is sufficient.

However, it's worth noting that `Math.pow()` uses ECMAScript 3 (ES3) syntax, which might not be as concise or readable as the exponentiation operator (`**`).

**Other alternatives:**

1. **Babel.js**: Can transpile ES6+ code to older JavaScript versions for better browser support.
2. **Lodash library**: Provides a `pow()` function that can calculate powers more efficiently than `Math.pow()`.
3. **Native modules**: Some platforms offer native modules or libraries that provide optimized power calculations, but these might not be available on all browsers.

In conclusion, the benchmark compares three ways to calculate `6^11`: using `Math.pow()`, exponentiation operator (`**`), and multiplication (`*`). The results indicate that the exponentiation operator is faster than the others due to its more efficient compilation to `Math.pow()` under the hood.

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow vs ** vs * but eleven (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs ** 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

No previous run results

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