Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Coordinate test 6
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Conditional comparison vs Bitwise comparison vs Other test vs Other test 2 vs Other test 3 vs Other test 4 vs If test vs If test 2
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var width = 480; var halfWidth = width >> 1; var invertedHalfWidth = 1 / halfWidth;
Tests:
Conditional comparison
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuadLeft = xPos < halfWidth ? 0 : 1;
Bitwise comparison
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var diff = xPos ^ halfWidth; diff |= diff >> 1; diff |= diff >> 2; diff |= diff >> 4; diff |= diff >> 8; diff |= diff >> 16; diff &= ~(diff >> 1) | 0x80000000; diff &= (xPos ^ 0x80000000) & (halfWidth ^ 0x7fffffff); var xQuad = !!diff;
Other test
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos ^ halfWidth && ( !(halfWidth ^ 0) || ( (xPos / halfWidth) | 0 ) );
Other test 2
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos == width ? 1 : ( ( xPos * invertedHalfWidth ) | 0 );
Other test 3
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = xPos == width ? 1 : ~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth );
Other test 4
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuad = ~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth );
If test
var xPos = Math.random() * width; var xQuadLeft = 0; if( xPos >= halfWidth ) xQuadLeft = 1;
If test 2
var xPos = Math.random() * width; if( xPos < halfWidth ) var xQuadLeft = 0; else var xQuadLeft = 1;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (8)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Conditional comparison
Bitwise comparison
Other test
Other test 2
Other test 3
Other test 4
If test
If test 2
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the benchmark and analyze what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of different JavaScript comparisons, specifically: * Conditional comparison * Bitwise comparison * Other test 1: `xPos ^ halfWidth && (` (using logical AND) * Other test 2: `xPos == width ? 1 : (` (using equality operator with integer context) * Other test 3: `~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth )` (using the bitwise NOT operator on an integer result) * Other test 4: `~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth )` (same as above, but without specifying a variable name) **What's being tested** Each test case is designed to measure the performance of a specific comparison operation. The tests are comparing different approaches to achieve the same result. Here's a breakdown of each test case: 1. **Conditional comparison**: Tests the `xPos < halfWidth ? 0 : 1` syntax. 2. **Bitwise comparison**: Tests the `diff |= diff >> 1 | 0x80000000;` syntax, which performs a bitwise OR operation with a shifted value and a mask. 3. **Other test 1**: Tests the `xPos ^ halfWidth && (` syntax, which uses logical AND with an expression that returns either 0 or 1. 4. **Other test 2**: Tests the `xPos == width ? 1 : ( ... )` syntax, which uses equality operator with integer context. 5. **Other test 3**: Tests the `~~( xPos * invertedHalfWidth )` syntax, which performs a bitwise NOT operation on an integer result. 6. **Other test 4**: Same as above, but without specifying a variable name. **Variables and constants** * `xPos`: A variable representing a value to be compared. * `halfWidth`: A constant representing half of the maximum possible value for `xPos`. * `invertedHalfWidth`: The bitwise NOT of `halfWidth`. **Performance implications** The performance differences between these tests are likely due to: * Branch prediction and misprediction penalties in the CPU. * Cache misses and hits, as some operations may require access to different cache lines. * Instruction-level parallelism (ILP) and pipelining effects. **Interpretation of results** The benchmark results show that the optimal approach depends on the specific test case. However, generally speaking: * Conditional comparisons tend to be faster due to better branch prediction and fewer mispredictions. * Bitwise comparisons can be faster if the CPU has a wide set of instructions for bitwise operations and can execute them in parallel. **Conclusion** This benchmark highlights the importance of considering different performance characteristics when choosing an approach to comparison operations. By understanding the nuances of each test case, developers can optimize their code for better performance and make informed decisions about the best way to compare values in their specific use cases.
Related benchmarks:
Coordinate test
Coordinate test 4
Coordinate test 5
Coordinate test 7
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?