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:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Jump 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:
one year 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>
Test name
Executions per second
new Date
8548813.0 Ops/sec
Date.parse
9342204.0 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 and toString() vs new Date
Date.parse vs new Date with comparison
Date.parse vs new Date (with valueOf())
new Date(Date.parse()) vs new Date
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?