Benchmark: Math.abs vs >> 0

Tests:

Math.abs
for (let i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) { let a = Math.abs(12345); }
>> 0
for (let i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) { let a = 12345 >> 0; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.abs
>> 0

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.abs	9816.6 Ops/sec
>> 0	9797.7 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 is tested, the options compared, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript operations: `Math.abs` and the bit shift operator (`>> 0`) applied to an integer value (12345).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **`Math.abs`**: This method calculates the absolute value of a number.
2. **`12345 >> 0`**: This operation performs a bit shift by shifting the binary representation of `12345` to the right by 0 bits, effectively leaving the original value unchanged.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Math.abs`**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported across different browsers and platforms.
	+ Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the function call and potential garbage collection.
* **`12345 >> 0`**: This is a simple, low-level operation that only relies on bitwise operations. It's likely faster than `Math.abs` but may not be as widely supported.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark assumes that the JavaScript engine being tested supports the use of bit shift operators (`>>`) and integer arithmetic. The performance difference between these two options will vary depending on the specific browser or platform, as some engines might optimize one over the other.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, MeasureThat.net likely uses a built-in JavaScript engine that provides the necessary functionality for running benchmarks.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives to compare in microbenchmarking tests might include:

* Using `Math.floor` instead of `>> 0`
* Employing a loop unrolling strategy for the bit shift operator
* Comparing performance with other integer arithmetic operations, such as `12345 + 0`
* Including or excluding specific browser-specific optimizations

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches will depend on the specific use case and requirements of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Math.abs vs >> 0 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.abs vs >> 0

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.abs

>> 0

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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