Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
2's math pow vs shift vs exp random num
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pow vs shift vs Exponentiation
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
pow
var x = Math.pow(2,Math.floor(Math.random() * 64));
shift
var y = 1 << Math.floor(Math.random() * 64)
Exponentiation
var y = 2 ** Math.floor(Math.random() * 64)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pow
shift
Exponentiation
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/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 129 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=558465" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
shift
5.2M/s
Exponentiation
5.1M/s
pow
3.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
shift
5,240,352 Ops/sec
Exponentiation
5,137,748 Ops/sec
pow
3,547,826 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark. **Overview** The test cases are designed to compare the performance of three different ways to calculate the power of 2: 1. `Math.pow(2, x)` 2. `1 << x` (bit shift) 3. `2 ** x` (exponentiation) **Options Compared** The two options being compared for each test case are: * `pow`: using the `Math.pow` function * `shift`: using the bit shift operator (`<<`) * `Exponentiation`: using the exponentiation operator (`**`) **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Math.pow(2, x)**: * Pros: straightforward and easy to understand, works for any base and exponent. * Cons: may be slower due to its iterative nature. 2. **1 << x (bit shift)**: * Pros: typically faster than `Math.pow` because it's a single operation that doesn't involve iteration. * Cons: only works for powers of 2, which might not cover the entire range of possible inputs. 3. **2 ** x (exponentiation)**: * Pros: often faster than `Math.pow` and can handle non-integer exponents. * Cons: requires support for exponentiation operator (`**`) in JavaScript, which may not be available in older browsers. **Library Used** None of the test cases use a specific library. However, it's worth noting that the `Math.pow`, `<<`, and `**` operators are all part of the standard JavaScript Math object. **Special JS Feature or Syntax (Not Applicable)** There is no special feature or syntax used in these test cases. **Other Considerations** When running benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors like: * Browser version and platform support * System configuration and resource availability * Optimizations enabled by the browser (e.g., just-in-time compilation) * Test case noise and variability **Alternatives** To compare these approaches, you could also test other methods for calculating powers of 2, such as: * Using a lookup table or cache to store pre-calculated values * Implementing a custom binary exponentiation algorithm * Using a third-party library that provides optimized exponentiation functions Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on your performance requirements and constraints. Overall, this benchmark helps identify which method is fastest for calculating powers of 2, with implications for algorithms and applications that require similar computations.
Related benchmarks
2's math pow vs shift vs exp
math pow vs bit shifting vs exponentiation operator
left shift vs math.pow vs Exponentiation
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?