Benchmark: Math.pow(10, x) vs Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)

Script Preparation code:

var x = (function (x) {
  x.length = 1 << 16;
  for (var i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
    x[i] = Math.random();
  }
  return x;
})([]);

Tests:

Math.pow(10, x)
var y = []; y.length = x.length; for (var i = 0; i < y.length; i++) { y[i] = Math.pow(10, x[i]); }
Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)
var y = []; y.length = x.length; for (var i = 0; i < y.length; i++) { var y = Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow(10, x)
Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/101.0.4951.64 Safari/537.36 Edg/101.0.1210.53

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.pow(10, x)	32.9 Ops/sec
Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)	3533.8 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two mathematical functions:

1. `Math.pow(10, x)`
2. `Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)`

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code generates an array `x` with 16 random elements between 0 and 1 (inclusive). This is done using a JavaScript function that returns an array of `length` equal to `1 << 16`, which is approximately 65,536.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided. This suggests that the benchmark only tests the JavaScript performance and does not involve any DOM-related or browser rendering overhead.

**Individual Test Cases**

The two test cases are:

1. **Math.pow(10, x)**: This test case creates an array `y` with the same length as `x`, then uses a for loop to calculate `Math.pow(10, x[i])` for each element in `x`. The result is stored in `y`.
2. **Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)**: This test case is similar to the first one, but it calculates `Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x[i])` instead.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Math.pow(10, x)**
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to implement and understand.
		+ Can be optimized for specific use cases (e.g., using a lookup table or a faster algorithm).
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient as the exponential function in certain situations.
2. **Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)**
	* Pros:
		+ Often more efficient than `Math.pow(10, x)` for large values of `x`, since it leverages the mathematical property that `exp(ln(a)) = a`.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less intuitive or harder to understand for some developers.
		+ Requires careful consideration of edge cases (e.g., handling NaNs or infinities).

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, no external libraries are used. However, if we consider the `Math` object as a library, its purpose is to provide fundamental mathematical functions.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the use of `for...of` loop syntax ( implicit or explicit) is not highlighted either.

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow(10, x) vs Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x) (version: 0)

Math.pow(10, x) vs Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow(10, x) vs Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow(10, x)

Math.exp(Math.LN10 * x)

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):