Benchmark: PutImageData vs DrawImage Large

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id='master' width='1000' height='1000'></canvas>
<canvas id='pid' width='1000' height='1000'></canvas>
<canvas id='pid2' width='1000' height='1000'></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var canvas = document.getElementById('master');
var ctx = canvas.getContext('2d');
var pid = document.getElementById('pid').getContext('2d');
var pid2 = document.getElementById('pid2').getContext('2d');
var imgData;
var width = 1000;
var height = 1000;
ctx.width = width;
ctx.height = height;
ctx.fillStyle = "red";

// DRAW SOME BLOCKS
for (let i=0; i<width; i+=50) {
  ctx.fillRect(i,0,50,50);
  ctx.fillRect(i,(height/2)-25,50,50);
  ctx.fillRect(i,height-50,50,50);
}
for (let i=0; i<height; i+=50) {
  ctx.fillRect(0,i,50,50);
  ctx.fillRect((width/2)-25,i,50,50);
  ctx.fillRect(width-50,i,50,50);
}

// PRE-COPY IMG DATA
imgData = ctx.getImageData(0,0,width,height);

Tests:

DrawImage copy canvas -> canvas
pid.drawImage(canvas,0,0);
PutImageData copy imgData -> canvas
pid2.putImageData(imgData,0,0);
PutImageData copy canvas -> imgData -> canvas
let imgDataLocal = ctx.getImageData(0,0,width,height); pid2.putImageData(imgDataLocal,0,0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
DrawImage copy canvas -> canvas
PutImageData copy imgData -> canvas
PutImageData copy canvas -> imgData -> canvas

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition and Test Cases**

The benchmark is designed to compare three different approaches for copying image data from one canvas to another:

1. **DrawImage**: Using the `drawImage` method of the `context` object to draw an image on another canvas.
2. **PutImageData**: Using the `putImageData` method of the `context` object to paste image data onto a canvas.
3. **Local Image Data Copy**: Creating a local copy of the image data using the `get imageData` method, and then pasting it onto another canvas.

**Options Compared**

The three approaches are compared in terms of their execution time (measured in executions per second).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **DrawImage**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, efficient for small images.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for large images due to memory constraints and performance issues.
2. **PutImageData**:
	* Pros: Suitable for large images, allows for more control over image manipulation.
	* Cons: May have performance overhead due to the need to store image data in a buffer.
3. **Local Image Data Copy**:
	* Pros: Efficient for small images, avoids memory constraints and performance issues associated with `drawImage`.
	* Cons: Requires more code and may be slower than other approaches.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the test cases rely on any specific libraries beyond the standard JavaScript library. However, it's worth noting that the `Canvas` API is a modern web standard for rendering 2D graphics in HTML5.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard JavaScript library and Canvas API.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to copying image data, you may consider:

1. **CanvasRenderingContext2D.createImageData**: This method creates a new 2D image data object that can be used as an argument to `putImageData`.
2. **Web Workers**: You can use Web Workers to offload image processing tasks to separate threads, potentially improving performance.
3. **GPU Acceleration**: Modern browsers support GPU acceleration for graphics rendering, which may improve performance for complex image processing tasks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and requirements, such as additional setup or complexity in implementation.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DrawImage copy canvas -> canvas	181618.1 Ops/sec
PutImageData copy imgData -> canvas	570.8 Ops/sec
PutImageData copy canvas -> imgData -> canvas	345.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

PutImageData vs DrawImage Large (version: 0)

copying canvas with PutImageData vs DrawImage

Comparing performance of: DrawImage copy canvas -> canvas vs PutImageData copy imgData -> canvas vs PutImageData copy canvas -> imgData -> canvas

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

DrawImage copy canvas -> canvas

PutImageData copy imgData -> canvas

PutImageData copy canvas -> imgData -> canvas

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):