Benchmark: drawing cached vs live

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="canvas" width="960" height="540"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var canvas = document.getElementById('canvas');
var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");

var cacheG = document.createElement('canvas');
var cacheD = cacheG.getContext('2d');

cacheG.width = 20;
cacheG.height = 20;

cacheD.beginPath();
cacheD.fillStyle = '#000';
cacheD.arc(10, 10, 10, 0, Math.PI * 2, true);
cacheD.fill();

cacheD.beginPath();
cacheD.lineWidth = 2;
cacheD.strokeStyle = '#fff';
cacheD.moveTo(6, 10);
cacheD.lineTo(14, 10);
cacheD.moveTo(10, 5);
cacheD.lineTo(7, 10);
cacheD.moveTo(13, 10);
cacheD.lineTo(9, 15);
cacheD.stroke();
cacheD.closePath();

Tests:

cache
ctx.drawImage(cacheG, 20, 20);
live
ctx.beginPath(); ctx.fillStyle = '#000'; ctx.arc(10, 10, 10, 0, Math.PI * 2, true); ctx.fill(); ctx.beginPath(); ctx.lineWidth = 2; ctx.strokeStyle = '#fff'; ctx.moveTo(6, 10); ctx.lineTo(14, 10); ctx.moveTo(10, 5); ctx.lineTo(7, 10); ctx.moveTo(13, 10); ctx.lineTo(9, 15); ctx.stroke(); ctx.closePath();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cache
live

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 JSON and explain what is tested, the options compared, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JS features or syntax, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code creates a `canvas` element and gets its 2D drawing context (`ctx`). It also creates a new canvas element (`cacheG`) and gets its 2D drawing context (`cacheD`). The script then draws a shape on both canvases: a filled circle and a stroke path.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code creates an HTML `canvas` element with the id "canvas" and sets its width and height.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **cache**: This test case uses the prepared canvas (`cacheG`) to draw the shape on the main canvas, without starting from scratch (i.e., using a new 2D context).
2. **live**: This test case uses the main canvas's 2D drawing context to draw the shape, starting from scratch (i.e., using a new 2D context).

**Options Compared**

The two options compared are:

* Using a cached canvas (`cacheG`) versus starting from scratch using the main canvas's 2D drawing context.
* The pros and cons of each approach:
	+ **Cached Canvas** (cache):
		- Pros:
			+ Faster execution, as the graphics context is already set up.
			+ Reduced overhead in creating a new 2D context.
		- Cons:
			+ Requires extra memory to store the cached canvas.
		+ May not be suitable for all use cases where the graphics context needs to be reset.
	+ **Starting from Scratch** (live):
		- Pros:
			+ Easier to understand and maintain, as no caching is required.
			+ Suitable for most use cases where the graphics context needs to be reset.
		- Cons:
			+ Slower execution, as creating a new 2D context incurs overhead.
		+ More memory usage, as a new 2D context needs to be created.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that `canvas` and its related APIs (e.g., `createCanvas()`, `getContext()`) are part of the HTML5 API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

* **Cache vs. No Cache**: The choice between using a cached canvas (`cacheG`) versus starting from scratch (`live`) depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.
* **Memory Usage**: Caching the graphics context can lead to increased memory usage, which may be a concern for applications with limited resources.
* **Code Readability**: Using a cached canvas can make code more complex, as it requires maintaining the state of the cached canvas.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to testing this benchmark include:

1. **Use a GPU-accelerated rendering engine**: If available, using a GPU-accelerated rendering engine (e.g., WebGL) could provide faster execution and improved performance.
2. **Test with different canvas sizes**: Testing the benchmark with varying canvas sizes can help identify performance improvements or degradations in specific scenarios.
3. **Compare to other graphics APIs**: Comparing the benchmark results to other graphics APIs (e.g., SVG, raster graphics engines) could provide a more comprehensive understanding of performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases to accommodate the changes.

Related benchmarks:

drawing cached vs live (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: cache vs live

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

cache

live

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):