Benchmark: 64 bit 1 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var x1 = new BigUint64Array(1000);
var x2 = new Uint32Array(1000);

Tests:

64
let i = 1000; while (i) { i--; x1[i] |= x1[i] & 10n; }
32
let i = 1000; while (i) { i--; x2[i] |= x2[i] & 10; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
64
32

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
64	17122.1 Ops/sec
32	17091.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of 64-bit and 32-bit integers in arithmetic operations using bitwise AND (&) with a small offset.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` section specifies how to prepare the script for execution. In this case:

*   `BigUint64Array(1000)` creates a large array to store 64-bit unsigned integer values.
*   `Uint32Array(1000)` creates another array, but with 32-bit unsigned integer values.

The `Html Preparation Code` is empty, which means the benchmark doesn't require any HTML setup.

**Options Compared**

The two benchmarks compare the performance of:

1.  **64-bit integers (BigUint64Array)**: These are large, whole numbers that can be used to represent very large quantities.
2.  **32-bit integers (Uint32Array)**: These are smaller, whole numbers that are typically used for indexing arrays or other small values.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **64-bit integers**: Pros:

*   Can handle larger numbers than 32-bit integers.
    *   May be faster due to the reduced need for branching instructions (since most CPU operations can handle 64-bit integers more efficiently).
*   **32-bit integers**: Pros:

*   Generally uses less memory and is more suitable for systems with limited resources.
    *   Can provide better performance in cases where the range of values required is smaller than what a 64-bit integer can support.

Cons for 64-bit integers:

*   Requires more memory to store large arrays, which may be an issue for systems with limited RAM.
*   May have slower performance due to increased branching instructions.

Cons for 32-bit integers:

*   Limited to smaller values, which might not be suitable for large-range calculations.

**Library and Special Features**

In the provided benchmark, the `BigUint64Array` library is used. This library provides support for arbitrary-precision arithmetic operations using 64-bit integers.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. It relies solely on standard JavaScript functions like bitwise AND (&).

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative ways to measure performance, here are a few options:

1.  **ES6+ Benchmarks**: Measure the performance of modern JavaScript features and syntax.
2.  **Native Module Benchmarks**: Test the performance of native modules in Node.js or browser environments.

For example, you could modify the benchmark to use ES6+ syntax like async/await or destructuring to measure their performance:

```javascript
let i = 1000;

async function loop() {
    while (i) {
        await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 1));
        i--;
        x1[i] |= x1[i] & 10n;
    }
}

loop();
```

Or you could use native modules like `web_workers` to measure their performance in browser environments:

```javascript
const worker = new Worker('worker.js');
worker.onmessage = (e) => {
    console.log(e.data);
};

// worker.js:
self.addEventListener('message', (event) => {
    let i = 1000;
    while (i) {
        event.waitUntil(async () => {
            await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 1));
        });
        i--;
        x1[i] |= x1[i] & 10n;
    }
});
```

Keep in mind that each alternative will require modifications to your benchmark and might not directly compare with the original script.

Related benchmarks:

64 bit 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 64 vs 32

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

64

32

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):