Benchmark: fillRect vs rect

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas width="500" height="500"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var ctx = document.querySelector('canvas').getContext('2d');

Tests:

fillRect
ctx.fillStyle = '#'+(Math.random() * 0xFFFFFF << 0).toString(16).padStart(6, '0'); ctx.fillRect(Math.random() * 500, Math.random() * 500, Math.random() * 50, Math.random() * 50);
rect
ctx.beginPath(); ctx.rect(Math.random() * 500, Math.random() * 500, Math.random() * 50, Math.random() * 50); ctx.fillStyle = '#'+(Math.random() * 0xFFFFFF << 0).toString(16).padStart(6, '0'); ctx.fill();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fillRect
rect

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; rv:115.0) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/6.7 Firefox/115.0 PaleMoon/33.7.2

Browser/OS: Pale Moon (Firefox Variant) 33 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
fillRect	532649.7 Ops/sec
rect	187273.9 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 definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: `fillRect` and `rect`. The goal of this benchmark is likely to determine which method is faster, more efficient, or more suitable for a specific use case.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **fillRect**: This approach uses the `fillStyle` property to set the fill color, followed by a call to `fillRect()` to draw the rectangle.
2. **rect**: This approach uses the `beginPath()` and `rect()` methods to define the rectangle's outline, followed by a call to `fill()` to fill the rectangle.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **fillRect**:
	* Pros: Can be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with canvas drawing.
	* Cons: May require additional setup (e.g., setting fill color) before calling `fillRect()`.
2. **rect**:
	* Pros: Can provide better control over the rectangle's outline and can be more efficient in terms of draw calls.
	* Cons: Requires an extra step to define the rectangle's outline using `beginPath()` and `rect()`.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the canvas 2D context library is used. The `getContext('2d')` method returns a reference to the 2D drawing context of an HTML canvas element.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* **Repeatability**: Can the results be reproduced consistently?
* **Warm-up**: Are there any initialization steps that need to be taken before running the benchmark?
* **Interpretation**: What does a high or low execution rate mean for this specific use case?

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for similar benchmarks could include:

* Comparing different drawing APIs, such as SVG or WebGL.
* Testing the performance of various rendering engines, like Chromium or Blink.
* Evaluating the impact of different optimization techniques on canvas-based rendering.

In terms of alternative benchmark scripts, the provided `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` can be modified to test different scenarios, such as:

* Drawing multiple shapes simultaneously
* Using different fill styles or colors
* Simulating user interactions (e.g., mouse movements or clicks)

The choice of benchmark script and HTML preparation code will depend on the specific requirements and goals of the comparison.

Related benchmarks:

fillRect vs rect (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fillRect vs rect

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

fillRect

rect

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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