Benchmark: Scroll - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

let num = 0;
let lerp = 0.2;
let distance = 9000;

Tests:

floor
function render(time) { let oldNum = num; if (num < distance) { num++; } oldNum += Math.floor((num - oldNum) * lerp); requestAnimationFrame(render); }
toFixed
function render(time) { let oldNum = num; if (num < distance) { num++; } oldNum += ((num - oldNum) * lerp).toFixed(2); requestAnimationFrame(render); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
floor
toFixed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
floor	85825400.0 Ops/sec
toFixed	78174584.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided JavaScript microbenchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between using `Math.floor()` and `toFixed(2)` to perform rounding operations in a specific numerical computation.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`Math.floor()`**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to the input value.
2. **`toFixed(2)`**: This method converts the number to a string and rounds it to 2 decimal places.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* `Math.floor()`: Pros:
	+ Fastest option, as it only requires a single operation (flooring).
	+ Can be optimized by browser engines.
Cons:
	+ May not provide accurate results for non-integer values with fractional parts.
* `toFixed(2)`:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides more precise control over rounding accuracy.
		- Works well for both integer and non-integer values.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower than `Math.floor()`, as it requires converting the number to a string and performing additional operations.

**Library usage:**

There is no external library being used in this benchmark. The functions being tested, `Math.floor()` and `toFixed(2)`, are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned. This benchmark focuses solely on the numerical computation aspect.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The benchmark preparation code sets up some variables:
```javascript
let num = 0; // starting value
let lerp = 0.2; // rounding factor
let distance = 9000; // threshold for incrementing num
```
These variables are used in the `render` function, which is defined as part of each benchmark case.

**Other alternatives:**

There aren't many alternatives to consider in this specific case, as the benchmark focuses on a simple numerical computation. However, other options could include:

* Using a different rounding method, such as `Math.round()` or a custom implementation.
* Incorporating additional operations or dependencies that might affect performance.
* Using a different programming language or framework for comparison.

Keep in mind that the primary focus of this benchmark is to measure the performance difference between `Math.floor()` and `toFixed(2)`, making it less likely that alternative options would be considered.

Related benchmarks:

Scroll (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: floor vs toFixed

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

floor

toFixed

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):