Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test benchmark # 2
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
New version of MeasureThat.net
Comparing performance of:
Test case #1 vs Test case #2
Created:
2027 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<div>yo</div>
Script Preparation code:
var i = 0;
Tests:
Test case #1
i++;
Test case #2
i--;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Test case #1
Test case #2
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
6 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 142 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=625725" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test case #2
14.8M/s
Test case #1
14.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Test case #2
14,836,859 Ops/sec
Test case #1
14,675,567 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the Benchmark Definition and test cases to understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two main components: 1. **Script Preparation Code**: `var i = 0;` - This code is executed once before running the actual benchmark. It sets an initial value of `i` to 0. 2. **Html Preparation Code**: `<div>yo</div>` - This code is used to generate a simple HTML element that will be displayed in the benchmark results page. **Test Cases** The benchmark consists of two individual test cases, each defined by: 1. **Benchmark Definition**: A JavaScript statement or expression to be executed repeatedly. 2. **Test Name**: A unique identifier for each test case. In this case, the two test cases are: * `i++;` (incrementing a variable) * `i--;` ( decrementing a variable) **Options Comparison** When running benchmarks like these, options such as compiler optimizations, caching, or loop unrolling can impact performance. Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach: 1. **No optimization**: * Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and reproduceable results. * Cons: May not be representative of real-world scenarios or performance-critical code. 2. **Loop unrolling**: * Pros: Can lead to significant performance improvements in certain cases. * Cons: Requires careful tuning and may introduce additional complexity. 3. **Cache-based optimization**: * Pros: Can provide better cache locality and reduce memory accesses. * Cons: May not be relevant for all types of workloads or architectures. In the case of the provided benchmark, loop unrolling is unlikely to have a significant impact, as the increment/decrement operations are simple and don't benefit from optimization. **Library Usage** There is no apparent library usage in this benchmark. The script preparation code and html preparation code are basic JavaScript snippets that don't rely on any external libraries. **Special JS Features or Syntax** The provided benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, if we were to consider other scenarios, some examples of special features or syntax might include: * `const`/`let` declarations * Arrow functions * Class expressions * Promises and async/await These features are used extensively in modern JavaScript code and can have a significant impact on performance. **Other Alternatives** If you were to create your own benchmark, some alternatives to consider include: 1. **GPU-based benchmarks**: Measure the performance of GPU-accelerated computations or compute-intensive algorithms. 2. **WebAssembly benchmarks**: Test the performance of WebAssembly (WASM) modules and their interaction with JavaScript engines. 3. **Thread-level benchmarks**: Compare the performance of different threading models, such as parallel loops or async/await. When designing a benchmark, it's essential to carefully consider the scope, relevance, and representativeness of the tests to ensure accurate and meaningful results.
Related benchmarks
cached getComputedStyle vs. getBoundingClientRect
cached getComputedStyle vs. getBoundingClientRect 442
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?