Benchmark: 100x100 canvas get and put

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id='drawcan' width='100' height='100'></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var drawCon = document.getElementById('drawcan').getContext('2d');

Tests:

get and set
var imageData = drawCon.getImageData(0,0,100,100); drawCon.putImageData(imageData,0,0);
get, paint, and set
var imageData = drawCon.getImageData(0,0,100,100); for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { for (var j = 0; j < 100; j++) { imageData[i*100+j] = 0xff00ff; } } drawCon.putImageData(imageData,0,0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
get and set
get, paint, and set

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark data to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches when drawing on a 100x100 canvas using JavaScript. The tests involve getting and putting image data into the canvas, with varying degrees of complexity.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Get-Only**: This approach involves retrieving the image data from the canvas without modifying it.
2. **Get-Paint-Set**: This approach involves not only getting the image data but also painting (modifying) the pixels and then putting the modified data back into the canvas.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Get-Only**:
	+ Pros: Simplifies the test case, reduces complexity, and focuses on retrieving image data.
	+ Cons: May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where modifying pixels is necessary.
* **Get-Paint-Set**:
	+ Pros: More representative of real-world use cases, but introduces additional complexity and overhead.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the extra computation and memory usage.

**Library Used**

In both test cases, no specific library is used beyond JavaScript's built-in canvas API. However, it's likely that a graphics library or framework might be used in a real-world application for more complex graphics rendering tasks.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (Not applicable)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark data.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to testing this benchmark could include:

* Using different browsers, devices, or operating systems to compare performance.
* Adding more complex scenarios, such as varying canvas sizes or pixel densities.
* Incorporating other graphics libraries or frameworks for comparison.
* Testing different optimization techniques, such as caching or memoization.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided script preparation code sets up a 100x100 canvas element and retrieves its 2D drawing context using `document.getElementById('drawcan').getContext('2d');`. The HTML preparation code creates the actual `<canvas>` element with the specified width and height.

Related benchmarks:

100x100 canvas get and put (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: get and set vs get, paint, and set

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

get and set

get, paint, and set

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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