Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
sin cos test
(version: 0)
sin cos test
Comparing performance of:
sin vs cos
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
sin
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { Math.sin(i); }
cos
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { Math.cos(i); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
sin
cos
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and its components to understand what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided `Benchmark Definition` JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It defines two test cases: `sin` and `cos`. Each test case is a simple loop that calculates the sine or cosine of numbers from 0 to 9,999 using the built-in `Math.sin()` and `Math.cos()` functions. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares different execution scenarios: 1. **Native implementation**: The native implementation uses the built-in `Math.sin()` and `Math.cos()` functions. 2. **Interpreted implementation**: The interpreted implementation is not specified, but it's likely that this represents a JavaScript engine like V8 (used by Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (used by Firefox). 3. **Just-In-Time (JIT)**: Some browsers, including Firefox 111, may have JIT compilers that can optimize the execution of certain functions. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: 1. **Native implementation**: * Pros: Typically faster than interpreted implementations due to native compilation. * Cons: May not be compatible with all JavaScript engines or browsers. 2. **Interpreted implementation**: * Pros: Can run on any platform that supports JavaScript, without requiring native compilation. * Cons: Generally slower than native implementations due to the overhead of interpretation. 3. **JIT**: * Pros: Can provide a significant performance boost for specific functions by compiling them into machine code. * Cons: May not always be effective, as some functions may not benefit from JIT optimization. **Library Usage** None of the test cases appear to use any external libraries or dependencies. The `Math.sin()` and `Math.cos()` functions are built-in JavaScript methods. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and simple, making it easy to understand and compare different execution scenarios. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in running microbenchmarks on similar JavaScript functions, here are some alternatives: * jsperf: A web-based tool for creating and comparing JavaScript benchmarks. * BenchmarkJS: A popular benchmarking framework for Node.js and the web. * Microbenchmarking libraries like micro-bench or benchmark.js. Keep in mind that each of these tools has its own strengths and weaknesses, and may be better suited for specific use cases or languages.
Related benchmarks:
pi 180
pi 180
pi 180
trigetry
trigetry
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?