Benchmark: byte double - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<!--your preparation HTML code goes here-->

Script Preparation code:

/*your preparation JavaScript code goes here
To execute async code during the script preparation, wrap it as function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction, example:*/
async function globalMeasureThatScriptPrepareFunction() {
    // This function is optional, feel free to remove it.
    // await someThing();
}

Tests:

mult
var a = 1024 * 1024;
pow
var b = Math.pow(1024,2);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

mult

21.1M/s

pow

13.5M/s

Fastest: mult (1.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ mult: 21,087,976 ops/sec
• pow: 13,459,128 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
mult
pow

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/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/138.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

mult

20.2M/s

pow

13.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ mult	20,244,828 Ops/sec
pow	13,807,591 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined on MeasureThat.net tests the performance of two different approaches for performing a calculation involving the number 1024: one uses multiplication (`mult`) and the other uses exponentiation (`pow`). Specifically, it compares the following two JavaScript expressions:

1. **Multiplication**:  
   `var a = 1024 * 1024;`  
   This expression simply multiplies 1024 by itself.

2. **Exponentiation**:  
   `var b = Math.pow(1024, 2);`  
   This expression utilizes the `Math.pow` function to raise 1024 to the power of 2 (squared).

### Comparison of Options

**Pros and Cons**

- **Multiplication (`mult`)**:
  - **Pros**:
    - Generally faster for simple arithmetic operations like multiplying two constants.
    - Direct and clear in syntax, which may lead to fewer mistakes during modification or understanding.
  - **Cons**:
    - Less flexible if the requirement changes to arbitrary powers. Developers would have to rewrite the code or implement additional logic for powers other than 2.

- **Exponentiation (`pow`)**:
  - **Pros**:
    - More flexible, as it can handle any exponent by changing the second parameter. This makes it useful in scenarios where the exponent might not be constant or known in advance.
  - **Cons**:
    - Typically slower than direct multiplication due to the overhead of a function call (`Math.pow`).
    - Slightly more complex, which can introduce errors if misunderstood (e.g., incorrect parameters).

### Other Considerations

1. **Performance Implications**: 
   - In performance-critical applications, especially those involving large numbers of calculations in real-time (like gaming or online computations), the difference in execution speed (as seen in the results) could impact the overall efficiency of the application.
   
2. **Readability vs. Performance**:
   - Depending on the context in which the code is used, choosing the more readable option (`Math.pow`) may be preferred over raw performance gains. Team conventions and standards should also be taken into account when making such decisions.

3. **Alternatives**:
   - In modern JavaScript (ES6 and beyond), there is also an exponentiation operator `**`, which can be used for raising a number to a power. For example, `var c = 1024 ** 2;` provides both clarity and performance relatively similar to that of multiplication in many engines.
   - Alternatively, in scenarios where performance is paramount and arbitrary powers are not required, function inlining or manual optimization techniques might be applied.

### Summary of Results

From the latest benchmark results:
- The multiplication test (`mult`) achieved approximately **20,244,828 executions per second**.
- The exponentiation test (`pow`) achieved approximately **13,807,591 executions per second**.

This shows that the multiplication approach is significantly faster in this specific benchmark context, highlighting the performance benefits of the simpler arithmetic operation over a function call for constant power calculations.

byte double (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `mult vs pow`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

mult

pow

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

byte double (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: mult vs pow

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

mult

pow

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `mult vs pow`