Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
left shift vs math.pow vs Exponentiation
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
left shfit vs Math.pow vs Exponentiation
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
left shfit
const a = 4 << 15;
Math.pow
const a = 4 * Math.pow(2, 15);
Exponentiation
const a = 4 * (2 ** 15);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
left shfit
Math.pow
Exponentiation
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 122 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=510941" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Exponentiation
82.3M/s
left shfit
81.2M/s
Math.pow
5.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Exponentiation
82,280,376 Ops/sec
left shfit
81,235,376 Ops/sec
Math.pow
5,711,712 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Overview of the Benchmark** The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different ways to perform exponentiation in JavaScript: 1. Left shift operation (`<<`) 2. `Math.pow()` function 3. Exponentiation using the `**` operator (also known as "fat arrow" syntax) **Test Cases and Options Compared** Each test case measures the execution time for a single exponentiation operation with a base of 4 and an exponent of 15. * The three options compared are: + Left shift operation (`<<`) + `Math.pow()` function + Exponentiation using the `**` operator **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Left Shift Operation (`<<`)**: * Pros: Simple, fast, and often used in embedded systems or low-level programming. * Cons: May not be as readable or efficient for complex exponentiations, can lead to integer overflow issues if the result exceeds the maximum value that can be represented by an `int`. 2. **Math.pow() Function**: * Pros: Widely supported, well-documented, and easy to use. * Cons: Can be slower than native exponentiation operations due to function call overhead. 3. **Exponentiation using the `**` Operator (Fat Arrow Syntax)**: * Pros: Fast, modern, and widely supported in modern JavaScript engines. * Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or Node.js versions. **Library Used** In this benchmark, no library is explicitly mentioned as being used. However, it's worth noting that the `Math.pow()` function relies on the implementation of the `pow` function in the underlying platform's math library. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The `**` operator (exponentiation using fat arrow syntax) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It provides a concise way to perform exponentiation without the need for the `Math.pow()` function or left shift operation. This feature is enabled by default in most modern browsers and Node.js versions. **Other Alternatives** In addition to the three options compared in this benchmark, other alternatives for performing exponentiation in JavaScript include: * Using a library like `numjs` or `mathjs`, which provide optimized implementations of mathematical functions, including exponentiation. * Utilizing a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler like V8 (used by Google Chrome and Node.js) to optimize the execution time of specific workloads. Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be relevant for this particular benchmark, which focuses on comparing the performance of three specific options.
Related benchmarks
2's math pow vs shift vs exp
math pow vs bit shifting vs exponentiation operator
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Shift
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?