Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication 2
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var n = 20;
Tests:
Math.pow
var x = Math.pow(n, n);
Exponentiation
var y = n ** n;
Multiplication
var y = n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n * n;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math.pow
Exponentiation
Multiplication
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/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 134 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=593717" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Multiplication
93.2M/s
Math.pow
93.0M/s
Exponentiation
89.4M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Multiplication
93,220,856 Ops/sec
Math.pow
93,030,704 Ops/sec
Exponentiation
89,446,424 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark compares the performance of three different methods for calculating `n` raised to the power of itself: `Math.pow`, exponentiation (`**`), and multiplication. **Options Compared** * **Math.pow**: Uses the `pow` function from the JavaScript Math object. * **Exponentiation**: Uses the `**` operator, which is a shorthand for "exponentiation". * **Multiplication**: Uses repeated multiplication to calculate the result. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Math.pow**: * Pros: Fast and accurate, part of the JavaScript standard library. * Cons: May have limitations in certain browsers or versions. 2. **Exponentiation (`**`)**: * Pros: Fast, modern, and widely supported across most browsers and platforms. * Cons: May be slower than `Math.pow` for very large inputs due to its implementation. 3. **Multiplication**: * Pros: Slow but straightforward to implement. * Cons: Inefficient in terms of CPU cycles required. In general, `Exponentiation (`**`) is the recommended approach due to its balance between speed and simplicity. However, if you need to support very old browsers or versions, using `Math.pow` might be necessary. **Library Used** None explicitly mentioned, but we can infer that the tests use built-in JavaScript functions and operators. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** The benchmark uses the exponentiation operator (`**`) which is a relatively modern syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2016 (ES6). This allows for concise and expressive code. If your target audience includes older browsers or versions, you might want to use `Math.pow` instead. **Other Alternatives** * **Caching**: You could consider caching the results of previous tests to avoid recalculating them unnecessarily. * **Profiling**: Use profiling tools like Chrome DevTools' Profiler or Node.js Inspector to analyze performance bottlenecks and optimize your benchmark further. * **Different Iteration methods**: Depending on the size of `n`, you might want to experiment with different iteration methods, such as using a loop or recursion. Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case, target audience, and requirements.
Related benchmarks
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication
multiplication vs exponentiation
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication pow 4
math.pow vs multiply vs exponentiation
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?