Benchmark: DrawStroke bench

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id='master' width='100' height='100'></canvas>
<canvas id='cached' width='100' height='100'></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var master = document.getElementById('master');
var masterctx = master.getContext('2d');

var cached = document.getElementById('cached');
var cachedctx = master.getContext('2d');

cachedctx.strokeRect(0, 0, 100, 100)

Tests:

Cached
masterctx.drawImage(cached,0,0);
draw rect rounded
cachedctx.strokeRect(0, 0, 100, 100)
draw rect not rounded
masterctx.strokeRect(0.5,0.5, 99.5, 99.5);
rect clipped
masterctx.save(); const region = new Path2D(); region.rect(0, 0, 100, 100); masterctx.clip(region, 'evenodd'); masterctx.lineWidth = 2; masterctx.strokeRect(0, 0, 100, 100); masterctx.restore();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Cached
draw rect rounded
draw rect not rounded
rect clipped

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Cached	553148.6 Ops/sec
draw rect rounded	1815698.6 Ops/sec
draw rect not rounded	1953124.1 Ops/sec
rect clipped	471764.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark is designed to test the performance of various graphics rendering algorithms in JavaScript, specifically related to drawing strokes on 2D canvases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The `Script Preparation Code` section sets up two canvases with identical dimensions. The `Html Preparation Code` section creates these canvases in the HTML file.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **Cached**: This test case draws an image (which is actually just a rectangle) onto the canvas using the cached ctx (context). The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of drawing a shape that has already been drawn and stored in memory.
2. **Draw rect rounded**: This test case draws a rounded rectangle on the canvas using the master ctx. The goal is to compare the performance of rendering a rounded rectangle versus a non-rounded one.
3. **Draw rect not rounded**: Similar to the previous test case, but this time without rounding the rectangle.
4. **Rect clipped**: This test case applies a clipping region to the canvas using the master ctx and then draws a rectangle on it. The objective is to measure the performance of rendering a stroke within a clipped region.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

* Caching: Drawing a shape that has already been drawn and stored in memory versus drawing it from scratch.
* Rounding: Rendering a rounded rectangle versus a non-rounded one.
* Clipping: Applying a clipping region to the canvas before drawing a stroke.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some general pros and cons for each approach:

* **Caching**: Pros:
	+ Can improve performance by reducing the number of draws.
	+ Can be beneficial for complex shapes that need to be rendered multiple times.
	Cons:
	+ May require more memory to store the cached image.
	+ Can lead to slower startup times if the cache is not properly managed.
* **Rounding**: Pros:
	+ Can reduce the computational complexity of rendering rounded rectangles.
	+ Can result in smoother curves and more visually appealing shapes.
	Cons:
	+ May increase rendering time due to the additional calculations required for rounding.
	+ Can be less efficient than non-rounded rendering if the shape is small or has simple contours.
* **Clipping**: Pros:
	+ Can improve performance by reducing the number of pixels that need to be rendered within a clipped region.
	+ Can be beneficial for complex shapes with many overlapping regions.
	Cons:
	+ Requires more complex calculations and processing power due to the clipping algorithm.
	+ Can lead to slower rendering times if the clipping region is large or complex.

**Libraries and Special JavaScript Features**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are used beyond the built-in JavaScript Canvas API. However, some browser-specific features might be used under the hood to optimize performance. For example:

* **Web Workers**: Some browsers might use web workers to offload computationally intensive tasks, such as clipping or rounding.
* **GPU acceleration**: Modern browsers often use GPU acceleration to improve rendering performance, especially for complex shapes and high-resolution canvases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

* **OpenGL ES**: This low-level API provides direct access to graphics hardware and can offer improved performance for specific use cases.
* **Three.js**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a higher-level abstraction for 3D rendering and animation.
* **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js or jsperf can help you create more comprehensive benchmarking tests with features like automated test generation, parallel execution, and data analysis.

Keep in mind that the specific choices and implementation details will depend on your project's requirements and goals.

Related benchmarks:

DrawStroke bench (version: 0)

stroke with clip vs no, rounded or not, vs cached

Comparing performance of: Cached vs draw rect rounded vs draw rect not rounded vs rect clipped

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Cached

draw rect rounded

draw rect not rounded

rect clipped

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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