Benchmark: Date.parse vs new Date().getTime()

Tests:

new Date
new Date('01/01/2001').getTime();
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2001');

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Date.parse

5.7M/s

new Date

5.1M/s

Fastest: Date.parse (1.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Date.parse: 5,744,494 ops/sec
• new Date: 5,081,290 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date
Date.parse

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; rv:143.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/143.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 143 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Date.parse

8.6M/s

new Date

7.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Date.parse	8,580,175 Ops/sec
new Date	7,199,647 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's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares the performance of two ways to get the current date: `new Date()` with `.getTime()` or using the `Date.parse()` method.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **`new Date('01/01/2001').getTime();`**: This approach uses the `new Date()` constructor and passes a string representation of a date to it. The resulting object is then called with the `getTime()` method, which returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC.
2. **`Date.parse('01/01/2001');`**: This approach uses the `Date.parse()` method directly, passing a string representation of a date to it.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`new Date()` with `.getTime()`**:
	+ Pros: This approach is more explicit and allows for easy parsing of dates in a specific format. It also avoids potential issues with internationalization.
	+ Cons: This approach creates an object, which can be slower due to the overhead of creating objects.
* **`Date.parse()`**:
	+ Pros: This approach is simpler and faster, as it doesn't create an object.
	+ Cons: This approach can be less explicit and may produce incorrect results if the date string is not in a standard format.

**Library and Syntax**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, note that `Date.parse()` has been deprecated in modern JavaScript versions since ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It's recommended to use `new Date('...').getTime()` or other methods like `Intl.DateTimeFormat().parse()` instead.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is standard JavaScript.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for getting the current date include:

* Using the `Date.now()` method, which returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC.
* Using the `Intl.DateTimeFormat().format(new Date())` method to format a date object in a specific way.

It's worth noting that these alternatives might not be exactly what this benchmark is testing, but they are other ways to achieve similar results.

Date.parse vs new Date().getTime() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `new Date vs Date.parse`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Date.parse vs new Date().getTime() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date vs Date.parse

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 11 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 11 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `new Date vs Date.parse`