Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Testing bitwise
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Math Round vs bitwise
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var n = Math.PI
Tests:
Math Round
Math.round(n)
bitwise
n | 0
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math Round
bitwise
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.3.1 Safari/605.1.15
Browser/OS:
Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=506607" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
bitwise
13.4M/s
Math Round
5.6M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
bitwise
13,435,478 Ops/sec
Math Round
5,622,452 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the provided JSON data for you, explaining what's being tested and the options being compared. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined by the `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. In this case: * `var n = Math.PI\r\n\n` sets a variable `n` to the value of pi (approximately 3.14159). * The `Html Preparation Code` is empty, which means no additional HTML code is being executed before the benchmark. This setup likely tests the performance difference between two operations: bitwise masking (`n | 0`) and rounding using `Math.round(n)`. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Bitwise Masking**: `n | 0`. This operation performs a bitwise AND operation with the binary value `0`, effectively truncating the fractional part of `n` to an integer. 2. **Rounding using Math.round()**: `Math.round(n)`. This function rounds `n` to the nearest integer. **Pros and Cons** * **Bitwise Masking (n | 0)**: + Pros: Fast, simple, and efficient for bitwise operations. + Cons: May lose precision due to truncation, especially for values with fractional parts near zero or one. * **Rounding using Math.round()**: + Pros: More accurate for most cases, as it uses a sophisticated algorithm to round numbers. + Cons: Slower and more complex than bitwise masking. Other considerations: * The choice of data type for `n` (a float) may impact performance. In this case, the use of pi as a value is likely intended to test the rounding behavior, rather than the magnitude of the result. * The presence of Safari 17 and Mac OS X 10.15.7 in the benchmark results suggests that the testing environment is focused on modern desktop browsers. **Library and Special JS Features** The `Math` library is used extensively throughout the benchmark script. Specifically, it's used for: * Accessing mathematical constants (e.g., `Math.PI`) * Performing rounding operations (`Math.round()`) No special JavaScript features or syntax are apparent in this specific benchmark.
Related benchmarks
floor() vs trunc() vs bitwise hacks (~~, >> 0, etc) 2
ceil vs bitwise
Math.round vs Bitwise
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?