Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
pow vs for-loop
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
pow vs for-loop
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
pow
var tmp = Math.pow(6, 21);
for-loop
var tmp = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 21; i++) { tmp *= 6; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pow
for-loop
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; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 137 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=599965" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
pow
1442.6M/s
for-loop
37.7M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
pow
1,442,552,448 Ops/sec
for-loop
37,650,716 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON data for MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of mathematical operations using `Math.pow` versus a traditional for-loop. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is represented by the "Benchmark Definition" field in each individual test case. There are two test cases: 1. `var tmp = Math.pow(6, 21);`: This test case uses the exponentiation operator (`Math.pow`) to calculate the result of raising 6 to the power of 21. 2. `var tmp = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 21; i++) { tmp *= 6; }`: This test case uses a traditional for-loop to calculate the same result. **Comparison** The two approaches differ in their implementation: * The `Math.pow` method is a built-in JavaScript function that calculates the power of a number. It is likely implemented using a more efficient algorithm under the hood, which can reduce overhead and improve performance. * The traditional for-loop approach, on the other hand, uses a manual loop to iterate 21 times, multiplying the result by 6 each time. **Pros and Cons** **Math.pow** Pros: * Likely implemented in native code or using a more efficient algorithm * Reduces overhead and improves performance Cons: * May not be as intuitive or familiar to developers who are not experienced with exponentiation operators * Can be less flexible than traditional for-loop approaches **Traditional For-Loop** Pros: * More intuitive and familiar to developers, especially those without experience with exponentiation operators * Can be more flexible in terms of implementing custom logic within the loop Cons: * May have higher overhead due to the manual loop and multiplication operations * Can lead to performance differences depending on the specific implementation and hardware. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage in these benchmark test cases. However, MeasureThat.net likely uses a JavaScript engine that provides various built-in functions and optimizations under the hood, which can affect the results of the benchmarks. **Special JS Features or Syntax** Neither of the provided test cases utilizes any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is described above. The `Math.pow` method is a standard built-in function in JavaScript, while the traditional for-loop approach is a common programming pattern. **Other Alternatives** Some alternative approaches to this benchmark could include: * Using other libraries or frameworks that provide optimized mathematical operations (e.g., NumJS, Math.js) * Implementing the exponentiation operator using bitwise operations (a technique often used in low-level programming languages) * Comparing performance using different data types (e.g., floating-point vs integer arithmetic) It's worth noting that MeasureThat.net likely uses a combination of these alternatives to provide comprehensive and meaningful benchmark results.
Related benchmarks
Math.pow(2,n) vs Table lookup vs bitwise
math pow vs multiply (with few extra variants)
Math.pow vs ** vs * vs for loop
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?