Benchmark: canvasperf - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="canvas" width="400" height="400"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var canvas = document.getElementById('canvas');
var ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");

Tests:

float
ctx.beginPath(); ctx.fillStyle = '#000'; ctx.arc(70.5, 70.5, 6, 0, Math.PI * 2, true); ctx.fill();
int
ctx.beginPath(); ctx.fillStyle = '#000'; ctx.arc(Math.trunc(50.5), Math.trunc(50.5), 6, 0, Math.PI * 2, true); ctx.fill();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
float
int

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 JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of JavaScript when drawing circles on an HTML canvas using different types of numbers: `float` and `int`. The test cases are designed to highlight any differences in performance between these two types of numbers.

**Options being compared:**

1. **Float**: The first test case uses `float` numbers, which are decimal numbers that can have fractional parts (e.g., 3.14).
2. **Int**: The second test case uses `int` numbers, which are whole numbers without fractional parts (e.g., 3).

**Pros/Cons of different approaches:**

1. **Float**: Using `float` numbers may lead to:
	* Improved performance due to the reduced precision and therefore smaller intermediate results.
	* Potential loss of accuracy or precision in calculations, especially if the number is converted back to an integer.
2. **Int**: Using `int` numbers may lead to:
	* Reduced performance due to the increased precision and potentially larger intermediate results.
	* Increased risk of arithmetic overflows or underflows, which can occur when using very large integers.

In general, using `float` numbers can provide a slight performance boost, but at the cost of potential accuracy issues. Using `int` numbers can provide more accurate calculations, but may come with a performance penalty.

**Library and purpose:**

There is no specific library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's likely that the benchmark uses the built-in JavaScript 2D drawing API (`ctx`) to perform the drawings.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other considerations:**

* The test cases only measure performance for a specific type of calculation (drawing circles on an HTML canvas). Other factors, like cache behavior or instruction-level parallelism, may also affect performance.
* The benchmark results are based on a single execution per second, which might not accurately represent real-world scenarios where multiple executions occur.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other alternatives to measure similar performance characteristics could include:

1. Drawing polygons with different numbers of sides.
2. Measuring the performance of other JavaScript APIs, like `requestAnimationFrame()` or Web Workers.
3. Comparing performance between compiled and interpreted JavaScript execution modes (e.g., using a just-in-time compiler).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not directly relate to the specific benchmark being discussed here, but can provide additional insights into JavaScript performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

canvasperf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: float vs int

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

float

int

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):