Benchmark: math pow N255 vs multiply

Tests:

pow
var x = Math.pow(54,255);
mult
var y = (() => { var n = 54; var r = 1; for (var i = 0; i < 255; i++) { r *= n; } return r; })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
mult

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/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	19454588.0 Ops/sec
mult	5700881.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two mathematical operations: `Math.pow` (power) and multiplication using a loop.

The first test case, "pow", measures the execution time of the expression `Math.pow(54, 255)` multiple times. The second test case, "mult", measures the execution time of a custom implementation of multiplication using a loop (`var y = (() => { var n = 54; var r = 1; for (var i = 0; i < 255; i++) { r *= n; } return r; })();`).

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

1. **Using `Math.pow`**: This is the built-in JavaScript function that calculates the power of a number.
2. **Manual multiplication using a loop**: This implementation uses a for loop to multiply 54 by itself 255 times.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Using `Math.pow`**:
	+ Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May not be optimized for performance in all browsers or situations.
* **Manual multiplication using a loop**:
	+ Pros: Customizable, can be optimized for specific use cases.
	+ Cons: More complex, slower due to the overhead of the loop.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may optimize or implement specialized functions like `Math.pow` internally using libraries like MathJS or Exponent.js.

**Special JS features/syntax**

There are a few notable features used in this benchmark:

* **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)**: The custom multiplication implementation uses an IIFE to create a new scope and avoid polluting the global namespace.
* **For loop**: Both implementations use a for loop, which is a common control structure in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to reimplement this benchmark with alternative approaches, some options could include:

* Using a more optimized library like MathJS or Exponent.js
* Employing specialized algorithms like exponentiation by squaring (e.g., for large powers)
* Utilizing WebAssembly (WASM) for performance-critical computations

These alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark's setup and implementation, but could potentially lead to better performance results.

Related benchmarks:

math pow N255 vs multiply (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pow vs mult

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow

mult

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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