Benchmark: Math.pow(x, 2) vs. x * x

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = Array.from(Array(10000), (_,x) => (Math.random()*x));

Tests:

Math.pow
numbers.map(x => Math.pow(x, 2));
x * x
numbers.map(x => x * x);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow
x * x

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 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
Math.pow	12425.9 Ops/sec
x * x	15813.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question compares the performance of two approaches: `Math.pow(x, 2)` and `x * x`. These two expressions are used to calculate the square of a number.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **`Math.pow(x, 2)`**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that raises `x` to the power of 2.
2. **`x * x`**: This is a simple arithmetic expression that multiplies `x` by itself.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

* **`Math.pow(x, 2)`**:
	+ Pros: More concise and readable, uses built-in function.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the function call.
* **`x * x`**:
	+ Pros: Simple and efficient, no function call overhead.
	+ Cons: Less readable and more verbose.

**Library Usage**

There is no library used in this benchmark. The expressions `Math.pow(x, 2)` and `x * x` are built-in JavaScript syntax.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following:

* Readability: If code readability is important, using `Math.pow(x, 2)` may be a better choice.
* Performance: If performance is critical and every byte counts, using `x * x` may be a better choice.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare other approaches, some alternatives could include:

1. **Using a library**: Using a library likelodash or MathJS, which provide optimized mathematical functions, might offer better performance.
2. **Vectorization**: If working with large arrays, using vectorized operations (e.g., `vec.pow(2)`) may be faster than iterating over the array.
3. **SIMD instructions**: Modern CPUs support SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instructions, which can significantly speed up mathematical operations on vectors.

However, these alternatives would require more complex setup and might not provide a direct comparison to the original `Math.pow(x, 2)` vs. `x * x` benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow(x, 2) vs. x * x (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow vs x * x

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow

x * x

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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