Benchmark: perfomance.now vs Date.now vs new Date().getTime() and toString(36)

Script Preparation code:

var timestamp = null;

Tests:

performance.now().toString(36)
timestamp = performance.now().toString(36);
Date.now().toString(36)
timestamp = Date.now().toString(36);
new Date().getTime().toString(36);
timestamp = new Date().getTime().toString(36);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 23 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 23 runs

performance.now().toString(36)

3.3M/s

Date.now().toString(36)

2.3M/s

new Date().getTime().toString(36);

2.2M/s

Fastest: performance.now().toString(36) (1.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ performance.now().toString(36): 3,250,104 ops/sec
• Date.now().toString(36): 2,312,763 ops/sec
• new Date().getTime().toString(36);: 2,241,574 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
performance.now().toString(36)
Date.now().toString(36)
new Date().getTime().toString(36);

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/139.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 139 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

performance.now().toString(36)

3.6M/s

Date.now().toString(36)

2.5M/s

new Date().getTime().toString(36);

2.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ performance.now().toString(36)	3,632,414 Ops/sec
Date.now().toString(36)	2,463,664 Ops/sec
new Date().getTime().toString(36);	2,372,068 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is tested:**
The benchmark compares the performance of three different methods to measure time in JavaScript:

1. `performance.now()`: This method returns the number of milliseconds since the browser's high-resolution timer was started.
2. `Date.now()`: This method returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC.
3. `new Date().getTime()` and `toString(36)`: This method converts a timestamp to a hexadecimal string with 36 characters.

**Options compared:**
The three options are compared in terms of their execution speed, which is measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond).

**Pros and Cons:**

* `performance.now()`:
	+ Pros: High-resolution timer, low latency.
	+ Cons: May not work consistently across all browsers or devices.
* `Date.now()`:
	+ Pros: Widely supported, easy to use.
	+ Cons: Lower resolution than `performance.now()`, may be affected by system clock accuracy.
* `new Date().getTime()` and `toString(36)`:
	+ Pros: Can provide a fixed-length hexadecimal string, which can be useful for certain applications.
	+ Cons: Low-resolution timer, slower execution speed compared to `performance.now()` and `Date.now()`.

**Library usage:**
The benchmark uses the `performance` object, which is a built-in JavaScript API that provides high-resolution timing functionality. The `Date` class is also used, but not in its most basic form (`new Date().getTime()`). Instead, it's combined with the `toString(36)` method, which is likely a custom implementation.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**
None of the code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's considered standard. However, it's worth noting that some older browsers may not support `performance.now()`, so it's always a good idea to include fallbacks for older browsers.

**Other alternatives:**
If you need to compare the performance of different methods to measure time in JavaScript, other options might include:

* Using a dedicated timing library like `ms` or `fast-dom`.
* Implementing your own high-resolution timer using Web Workers or WebAssembly.
* Using a framework like React or Angular that provides built-in timing functionality.

It's worth noting that the choice of method for measuring time in JavaScript depends on your specific use case and performance requirements. The benchmark provided by MeasureThat.net is likely intended to help developers understand the relative performance characteristics of different methods, but you may need to adapt or extend it to suit your specific needs.

perfomance.now vs Date.now vs new Date().getTime() and toString(36) (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of perfomance.now, Date.now and new Date().getTime() and converting to b36 string

Comparing performance of: `performance.now().toString(36) vs Date.now().toString(36) vs new Date().getTime().toString(36);`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

performance.now().toString(36)

Date.now().toString(36)

new Date().getTime().toString(36);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 23 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 23 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

perfomance.now vs Date.now vs new Date().getTime() and toString(36) (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of perfomance.now, Date.now and new Date().getTime() and converting to b36 string

Comparing performance of: performance.now().toString(36) vs Date.now().toString(36) vs new Date().getTime().toString(36);

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

performance.now().toString(36)

Date.now().toString(36)

new Date().getTime().toString(36);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 23 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 23 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: `performance.now().toString(36) vs Date.now().toString(36) vs new Date().getTime().toString(36);`