Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
math pow N255 vs multiply
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pow vs mult
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=540719" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
pow
19.5M/s
mult
5.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
pow
19,454,588 Ops/sec
mult
5,700,881 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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
multiplication vs exponentiation
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication pow 4
math.pow vs multiply vs exponentiation
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?