Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Math.imul vs. polyfill
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Math.imul vs Polyfill
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var x = 0x12345678; var y;
Tests:
Math.imul
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) { y = Math.imul(x, i); }
Polyfill
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) { y = (x & 0xffff) * i + (((x >>> 16) * (i & 0xffff)) << 16); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Math.imul
Polyfill
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
3 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/146.0.0.0
Browser/OS:
Chrome Mobile 146 on Android
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=628106" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Polyfill
232/s
Math.imul
230/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Polyfill
232 Ops/sec
Math.imul
230 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition represents two test cases: `Math.imul` and `Polyfill`. Both tests aim to measure the performance of multiplying two 32-bit integers using different approaches. **Options compared** 1. **`Math.imul`**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that multiplies two integers using a hardware-specific multiplication instruction, if available. 2. **`Polyfill`**: This approach uses a custom implementation of multiplication, relying on bitwise operations to achieve the same result as `Math.imul`. The polyfill is designed to work in older browsers or environments where `Math.imul` is not supported. **Pros and Cons** * **`Math.imul`**: + Pros: Typically faster due to hardware acceleration. + Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments, and its performance can vary depending on the browser's implementation. * **`Polyfill`**: + Pros: Guaranteed to work everywhere, as it's a custom implementation. Can provide better control over the multiplication process. + Cons: May be slower than `Math.imul` due to the overhead of manual bitwise operations. **Library/ Library-less approach** The `Polyfill` test case relies on no external libraries, as it provides its own implementation of multiplication using bitwise operators. **Special JS feature/syntax** None mentioned in this benchmark. The tests only focus on the performance difference between two multiplication approaches. **Other alternatives** If you were to create a similar benchmark for multiplying two 64-bit integers or other types of numbers, you might consider adding additional test cases, such as: * Using `BigInt` (if supported by the browser) * Implementing multiplication using a specific algorithm (e.g., Karatsuba algorithm) * Using SIMD instructions (for browsers that support them) Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases. In summary, this benchmark tests the performance difference between using `Math.imul` (a built-in JavaScript function) and a custom polyfill implementation of multiplication for 32-bit integers. The results can help developers understand how different approaches affect performance in their applications.
Related benchmarks
toFixed vs toPrecision vs Math.round() vs Math.floorfast vs MDN round_to_precision
Math.imul vs. polyfills
parseFloat(toFixed) vs Math.round()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?