Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
factorial
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
factorial of 10 vs factorial of 5
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function factorial(number) { var product = 1; for(vari=number;i>=1;--i){ product *= i; } return product; }
Tests:
factorial of 10
factorial(10)
factorial of 5
factorial(5)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
factorial of 10
factorial of 5
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 122 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=502861" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
factorial of 10
59.7M/s
factorial of 5
59.4M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
factorial of 10
59,689,924 Ops/sec
factorial of 5
59,395,392 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript functions, specifically the `factorial` function, on different browsers and devices. The benchmark consists of two test cases: calculating the factorial of 10 and 5. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, the following options are compared: 1. **Number of executions per second**: This is a measure of how many times the `factorial` function can be executed in one second. 2. **Browser**: The benchmark compares the performance of different Firefox versions (122) on various devices, including desktop and desktop-like platforms. **Pros and Cons** The pros of this approach are: * It provides a direct comparison between different browsers and devices, allowing users to see which one performs best. * It allows for easy repetition and iteration of results, making it easier to identify trends and performance differences. However, there are also some cons: * The benchmark may not accurately represent real-world scenarios, as the tests are isolated and don't account for other factors that might affect performance in a typical application. * The use of a single `factorial` function implementation might not reflect how this function would be used in a real-world scenario. **Library Usage** There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the `factorial` function itself is implemented as a simple recursive function that calculates the factorial of a given number. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The implementation of the `factorial` function uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not include any advanced features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in running a similar benchmark, there are other alternatives available: 1. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for JavaScript that provides more advanced features and flexibility than the simple implementation used in this benchmark. 2. **jsperf**: An older benchmarking tool that allowed users to compare the performance of different JavaScript functions and libraries on various platforms. 3. **Google's Benchmark**: A high-performance benchmarking tool specifically designed for JavaScript that allows for more complex benchmarks and better performance. Keep in mind that each benchmarking tool has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on your specific needs and goals.
Related benchmarks
Compute factorial of a number in JavaScript
console.time overhead confirmed
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?