Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Date.parse vs new Date(int)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
new Date vs Date.parse
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
new Date
new Date(1716526214000);
Date.parse
Date.parse('01/01/2024');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
new Date
Date.parse
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/17.4.1 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=524724" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Date.parse
9.3M/s
new Date
8.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Date.parse
9,342,204 Ops/sec
new Date
8,548,813 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Measuring the performance of JavaScript date parsing and creation can be an interesting benchmark. **What is tested:** The provided JSON represents two test cases: 1. **Date.parse**: This function parses a string representing a date in a specific format (in this case, "01/01/2024") into a number representing the timestamp (in milliseconds since January 1, 1970). 2. **new Date(int)**: This function creates a new instance of the Date object with the specified timestamp (in milliseconds). **Options compared:** The two test cases compare: * The performance difference between using `Date.parse` and creating a new Date object with a specific timestamp. * How these methods perform in different browsers, devices, and operating systems. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Date.parse**: This method is concise and easy to read, but it may not be as efficient as creating a new Date object since it relies on the browser's internal parsing logic. Some older browsers may also have issues with this method. 2. **new Date(int)**: This method is more explicit and allows for better control over the creation of the Date object. However, it can be less readable than using `Date.parse`. **Other considerations:** * The use of `Date.parse` might lead to inconsistent results across different browsers due to differences in parsing formats. * The performance difference between these two methods may vary depending on the specific use case and requirements. **Special JS features/syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark that would require additional explanation. **Alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative date parsing methods, some options include: * Using `new Date(dateString)` with a specific format (e.g., "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss.SSSZ"). * Utilizing libraries like Moment.js or Luxon for more robust and consistent date formatting. * Leveraging the `Intl.DateTimeFormat` API for locale-aware date parsing. Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, depending on your specific requirements.
Related benchmarks
Date.parse vs new Date with comparison
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?