Benchmark: new Date() vs Date.now() bis

Script Preparation code:

var timestamp = null;

Tests:

new Date()
timestamp = Date.now();
Date().now();
timestamp = new Date().getTime();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new Date()
Date().now();

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object with three properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark ("new Date() vs Date.now() bis").
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that there is no descriptive text for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Both are empty strings, meaning that there's no specific code to prepare or load before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. `"timestamp = Date.now();"`
	* This line of code sets a variable `timestamp` to the result of calling `Date.now()`.
2. `"timestamp = new Date().getTime();"`
	* This line of code sets a variable `timestamp` to the result of calling `new Date().getTime()`.

In summary, these test cases are comparing two ways to get the current timestamp in JavaScript:

1. Using the built-in `Date.now()` method.
2. Using the `Date` constructor and its `getTime()` method.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of using `Date.now()` versus the `Date` constructor with `getTime()`. The choice between these two approaches depends on the specific use case:

* **Pros of `Date.now()`**:
	+ It's a built-in method that's likely to be faster and more efficient.
	+ It's shorter and easier to read.
* **Cons of `Date.now()`**:
	+ May not work in older browsers or environments where it's not supported.
* **Pros of `new Date().getTime()`**:
	+ Works in all modern JavaScript environments, including older browsers.
	+ Returns a more precise timestamp (in milliseconds) than `Date.now()`.
* **Cons of `new Date().getTime()`**:
	+ Is slightly slower and more verbose than using `Date.now()`.

**Libraries and Special Features**

There are no libraries being used in this benchmark, and there are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested. The focus is solely on the performance comparison between these two simple expressions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in testing other ways to get the current timestamp, here are a few alternatives:

* Using `performance.now()` (a modern method that returns the number of milliseconds since the Unix Epoch).
* Using a library like Moment.js or Luxon, which provide more advanced date and time manipulation capabilities.
* Comparing the performance of different timestamp formats, such as ISO 8601 (`new Date().toISOString()`) versus a custom format.

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
new Date()	5438445.0 Ops/sec
Date().now();	5343460.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

new Date() vs Date.now() bis (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date() vs Date().now();

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new Date()

Date().now();

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):