Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.random vs Crypto.getRandomValues for 10k values
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Math.random vs Crypto.getRandomValues
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Math.random
(new Array(10000)).map(function () { return Math.random() })
Crypto.getRandomValues
crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(10000))
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math.random
Crypto.getRandomValues
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its options. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two different ways to generate random numbers: `Math.random` and `Crypto.getRandomValues`. The test creates an array of 10,000 values using each method and measures how many times each method can be executed per second (ExecutionsPerSecond). **Options being compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Math.random**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). It's a simple but relatively slow way to generate random numbers. 2. **Crypto.getRandomValues**: This is an API provided by modern browsers, introduced in HTML5, which allows generating cryptographically secure pseudo-random numbers. It's designed to be faster and more suitable for cryptographic purposes than `Math.random`. **Pros and Cons of each approach** 1. **Math.random**: * Pros: Simple, easy to use, and widely supported. * Cons: Relatively slow, not suitable for high-stakes cryptography or simulations requiring low entropy. 2. **Crypto.getRandomValues**: * Pros: Faster, more suitable for cryptographic purposes, and provides better randomness properties than `Math.random`. * Cons: More complex to use (requires importing the `crypto` module), and may require additional setup for certain browsers. **Other considerations** When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your application: * If you need high-quality random numbers for simulations or cryptography, use `Crypto.getRandomValues`. * If you only need simple, fast randomness for non-cryptographic purposes (e.g., game development), use `Math.random`. **Library used in the test** In this benchmark, the `crypto` library is used to access the `getRandomValues()` function. The `crypto` library provides a range of cryptographic primitives and algorithms, making it suitable for generating cryptographically secure random numbers. **Special JS feature or syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both `Math.random` and `Crypto.getRandomValues` are standard JavaScript APIs.
Related benchmarks:
repeated Math.random() vs crypto.getRandomValues()
Math.random vs crypto.getRandom Alberto
crypto.getRandomValues vs Math.random()
Math.floor(Math.random()) vs crypto.getRandom
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?