Benchmark: Math.floor vs alternatives 2

Script Preparation code:

this.numA = Math.random() * 100;

Tests:

Math.floor
return Math.floor(this.numA);
Bitwise
return ~~this.numA;
Bitwise 2
return this.numA >> 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.floor
Bitwise
Bitwise 2

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

Test name	Executions per second
Math.floor	9731973.0 Ops/sec
Bitwise	72769392.0 Ops/sec
Bitwise 2	68770448.0 Ops/sec

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing three different approaches to calculate the floor value of a random number generated by `Math.random()`:

1. **`Math.floor()`**: The traditional way to calculate the floor value using the built-in `Math.floor()` function.
2. **Bitwise**: Using the bitwise `~~` operator (two tildes) to truncate the decimal part of the number.
3. **Bitwise 2**: Using the bitwise `>>` operator (right shift) to remove the fractional part.

**Options Compared**

The three options are being compared in terms of their performance on different browsers and devices. The benchmark is designed to measure which approach provides the best execution speed.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`Math.floor()`**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: May be slower than bitwise operators for very large numbers due to the overhead of the function call.
2. **Bitwise**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, as it only requires a simple arithmetic operation.
	* Cons: May not work correctly with negative numbers or non-integer values, and its behavior may vary across browsers.
3. **Bitwise 2**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, similar to the bitwise approach.
	* Cons: Less intuitive and less widely supported than `Math.floor()`, as it relies on right shift instead of truncation.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark code. However, `Math.random()` is a built-in function that generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). The `~~` operator is also a built-in unary operator in JavaScript that performs integer truncation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for basic arithmetic operations. If we consider more advanced topics like closures, prototypes, or async programming, they are not present here.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to calculate the floor value, some other options might include:

* Using a library like `Math.floor()` with a third-party rounding function
* Implementing a custom algorithm using modular arithmetic or binary search
* Utilizing a specialized numerical library or framework that provides optimized implementations

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as widely supported or optimized as the built-in functions used in this benchmark.

Overall, the provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of different approaches to calculate the floor value of a random number. By using a variety of browsers and devices, it aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of which approach provides the best execution speed in various scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

Math.floor vs alternatives 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Math.floor vs Bitwise vs Bitwise 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.floor

Bitwise

Bitwise 2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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