Benchmark: Date.now() vs new Date().getTime() vs performance.now()

Script Preparation code:

var timestamp = null;

Tests:

Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now();
new Date().getTime();
timestamp = new Date().getTime();
performance.now()
timestamp = performance.now()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date.now()
new Date().getTime();
performance.now()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date.now()	8443350.0 Ops/sec
new Date().getTime();	5088191.5 Ops/sec
performance.now()	2213405.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into what's being tested here.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark tests three different ways to get the current timestamp in JavaScript:

1. `Date.now()`
2. `new Date().getTime();`
3. `performance.now()`

These methods are compared in terms of their execution speed, measured by the number of executions per second (EPS).

**Options Compared**

Here's a brief description of each option and its pros/cons:

1. **`Date.now()`**:
	* Pros: Simple to use, widely supported across browsers.
	* Cons: Returns the timestamp in milliseconds since January 1, 1970, which might not be suitable for all use cases (e.g., comparing timestamps within a shorter time range).
2. **`new Date().getTime();`**:
	* Pros: Also returns the timestamp in milliseconds since January 1, 1970.
	* Cons: More verbose than `Date.now()`, requires creating a new `Date` object.
3. **`performance.now()`**:
	* Pros: High-resolution timer that provides the most accurate measurement of time elapsed since the start of the browsing session.
	* Cons: Not supported in older browsers, requires access to the `performance` API.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these options, consider the following:

* If you need a simple, widely-supported way to get a timestamp, use `Date.now()`.
* If you require high-resolution timing or want to measure time elapsed since the start of the browsing session, use `performance.now()` (if supported).
* If you're working with older browsers that don't support `performance.now()`, use `new Date().getTime();` as a fallback.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this case, no external libraries are used. The benchmark only relies on built-in JavaScript methods: `Date.now()`, `new Date()` (constructor), and `performance.now()` (API).

No special JavaScript features or syntax are employed in this test.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for getting the current timestamp include:

* Using a library like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more advanced date and time manipulation capabilities.
* Utilizing Web APIs like `getUserMedia()` (for measuring time elapsed since the user granted permission) or `requestAnimationFrame()` (for measuring animation duration).
* Implementing custom timing mechanisms using JavaScript's built-in `setInterval()` or `setTimeout()` functions.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested and provides a solid foundation for choosing the best approach for your specific use case!

Related benchmarks:

Date.now() vs new Date().getTime() vs performance.now() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date.now() vs new Date().getTime(); vs performance.now()

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date.now()

new Date().getTime();

performance.now()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 6 months ago):