Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.now() vs +new Date() testing
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Date.now() vs +new Date(); vs new Date().getTime()
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var timestamp = null;
Tests:
Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now();
+new Date();
timestamp = +new Date();
new Date().getTime()
timestamp = new Date().getTime();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Date.now()
+new Date();
new Date().getTime()
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 provided benchmark definition and test cases. **What is tested?** The benchmark tests three different ways to get the current timestamp in JavaScript: `Date.now()`, `+new Date()`, and `new Date().getTime()`. **Options compared** 1. **`Date.now()`**: This method returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970) as an integer. 2. **`+new Date()`**: This method converts a new Date object to its equivalent numerical value, which is the same as `Date.now()`. 3. **`new Date().getTime()`**: This method returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix epoch (January 1, 1970) as an integer, similar to `Date.now()`. **Pros and Cons** * **`Date.now()`**: Pros: simple, efficient, and widely supported across browsers. Cons: may not work correctly in older browsers or when used with certain browser extensions that modify the DOM. * **`+new Date()`**: Pros: more readable than `Date.now()`, can be useful for debugging purposes. Cons: slightly slower than `Date.now()` due to the overhead of parsing a new Date object, and may not work correctly in older browsers. * **`new Date().getTime()`**: Pros: equivalent performance to `Date.now()`, more readable than `+new Date()`. Cons: similar to `+new Date()`, slightly slower due to the overhead of creating a new Date object. **Libraries and features** None of the test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features, so there's no additional explanation required for those aspects. **Other considerations** * **Browser differences**: The benchmark results show variations in performance across different browsers (Opera 97). This highlights the importance of testing on multiple platforms to ensure compatibility. * **JavaScript engine variations**: The results may also vary depending on the JavaScript engine used by each browser. However, the test cases do not explicitly address these variations. **Alternative approaches** Other alternatives for getting the current timestamp include: 1. **`performance.now()`**: This method is similar to `Date.now()`, but returns the high-precision value of the performance counter, which may be more accurate in certain situations. 2. **`Intl.DateTimeFormat().resolvedOptions().timeZone`**: This method uses the Internationalized Date and Time Format API to get the current timestamp based on the user's timezone settings. These alternatives may offer additional benefits or trade-offs, such as improved accuracy or increased complexity, depending on the specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime()
Date.now() vs new Date()
Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(qu)
Date.now() - Date.now() vs new Date() - new Date()
Date.now() vs +new Date() test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?