Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
math pow vs bit shifting vs **
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pow vs bit shifting vs **
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
pow
var x = Math.pow(2,15);
bit shifting
var y = 2 << 15;
**
var z = 2 ** 15;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pow
bit shifting
**
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
8 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 142 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=620796" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
**
187.9M/s
pow
186.4M/s
bit shifting
178.1M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
**
187,858,064 Ops/sec
pow
186,371,440 Ops/sec
bit shifting
178,083,152 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Benchmark Overview** The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different methods for calculating the power of a number in JavaScript: `Math.pow()`, bit shifting (`<<`), and exponentiation (`**`). The goal is to determine which method is the fastest. **Options Compared** There are three options being compared: 1. **`Math.pow()`**: This is a built-in function that calculates the power of a number using a logarithmic approach. 2. **Bit shifting (`<<`)**: This method uses bitwise operations to calculate the power of a number. Specifically, it shifts the bits of the number to the left by the exponent and then performs an integer division to restore the original value. 3. **Exponentiation (`**`)**: This is another built-in function that calculates the power of a number using exponentiation. **Pros and Cons** * **`Math.pow()`**: Pros: + Easy to use and understand + Built-in function, so it's likely to be optimized by the JavaScript engine Cons: + May be slower than other methods due to its logarithmic approach * **Bit shifting (`<<`)**: Pros: + Fast and efficient due to bitwise operations Cons: + Less intuitive and more complex to understand than `Math.pow()` + May not work correctly for all edge cases (e.g., negative numbers or non-integer exponents) * **Exponentiation (`**`)**: Pros: + Fast and efficient, similar to bit shifting Cons: + May be slower than other methods due to its recursive implementation **Library and Syntax** There are no external libraries being used in this benchmark. The `Math.pow()` and exponentiation (`**`) functions are built-in JavaScript functions. However, the test cases do use bitwise operations (`<<`), which is a low-level programming concept that can be found in many languages, not just JavaScript. **Other Considerations** The benchmark only tests these three methods for calculating powers of numbers. Other approaches, such as using polynomial approximations or specialized libraries like `Math.js`, are not considered here. **Alternative Approaches** Some alternative approaches to calculating powers of numbers include: * **Polynomial approximation**: Using a Taylor series expansion to approximate the power function * **Specialized libraries**: Such as `Math.js` which provides optimized implementations for various mathematical functions, including exponentiation and power calculations These alternatives may offer performance benefits or improved accuracy over the built-in JavaScript functions used in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks
math pow vs bit shifting vs exponentiation operator
Math.pow vs Exponentiation vs Multiplication pow 4
left shift vs math.pow vs Exponentiation
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?