Benchmark: Math.pow versus multiply, with or without semicolons!

Tests:

pow, w/ semicolon
var x = Math.pow(54,2);
pow, w/o semicolon
var y = Math.pow(54,2)
mult, w/ semicolon
var a = 54 * 54;
mult, w/o semicolon
var b = 54 * 54

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow, w/ semicolon
pow, w/o semicolon
mult, w/ semicolon
mult, w/o semicolon

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/84.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 84 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow, w/ semicolon	715826944.0 Ops/sec
pow, w/o semicolon	730027840.0 Ops/sec
mult, w/ semicolon	713138560.0 Ops/sec
mult, w/o semicolon	712315648.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is tested in each benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**
The Benchmark Definition represents the logic to be tested. In this case, there are four test cases:

* `Math.pow(x, 2)` with and without semicolons
* Generic multiplication (`x * x`) with and without semicolons

**Options Compared**

The benchmarks compare two options:

1. **`Math.pow(x, 2)`**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that raises the first argument to the power of the second argument.
2. **Generic Multiplication (`x * x`)**: This is a simple multiplication operation without any built-in functions.

**Pros and Cons**

* Using `Math.pow(x, 2)` has some advantages:
	+ It's a more concise way to perform exponentiation.
	+ It can handle negative numbers and fractions correctly.
* However, it also has some disadvantages:
	+ It's slower than generic multiplication for large numbers due to the overhead of the function call.
	+ Some older browsers might not support `Math.pow` or have performance issues with it.
* Generic multiplication (`x * x`) is simpler and more efficient but might be less readable and error-prone.

**Library Used**

None. The benchmarks use only built-in JavaScript functions and operations.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in these benchmarks. They focus solely on the performance difference between `Math.pow` and generic multiplication.

**Other Considerations**

Other factors that might affect the results include:

* Compiler optimizations
* Browser-specific extensions or plugins
* System resources (CPU, RAM, etc.)
* Network connectivity

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to benchmark other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* Using a library like `numjs` or `lodash` for numerical computations
* Comparing different arithmetic operators like `Math.sqrt()` vs. using the `**` operator
* Testing different data types (e.g., integers, floats, complex numbers)
* Measuring performance with different input sizes or distributions

Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript performance is inherently complex and can be influenced by many factors. The results should be taken as a general indication of performance differences rather than absolute measures.

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow versus multiply, with or without semicolons! (version: 0)

Difference between Math.pow and generic multiplication. Also semicolon vs no semicolon.

Comparing performance of: pow, w/ semicolon vs pow, w/o semicolon vs mult, w/ semicolon vs mult, w/o semicolon

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pow, w/ semicolon

pow, w/o semicolon

mult, w/ semicolon

mult, w/o semicolon

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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