new Intl.DateTimeFormat vs no new Intl.DateTimeFormat (version: 1)

measure the perf impact of caching calls to new Intl.DateTimeFormat

Comparing performance of: new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() vs new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts vs Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

Created: one year ago by: Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
Tests:
Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results
  • Test case name Result
    new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
    Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
    new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
    Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts

    Fastest: N/A

    Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:
Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Chrome 135 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
18K/s
Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
18K/s
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts
18K/s
Intl.DateTimeFormat.format()
18K/s
View exact numbers
Test name Executions per second
✓ new Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() 17,908 Ops/sec
Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts 17,882 Ops/sec
new Intl.DateTimeFormat.formatToParts 17,824 Ops/sec
Intl.DateTimeFormat.format() 17,730 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks