Benchmark: Math.pow vs Multiplication

Tests:

Math.pow
Math.pow(54, 2);
Multiplication
54*54
Custom
function pow(x, y){ let result = x; while(y){ y--; result*=x; } } pow(54, 2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow
Multiplication
Custom

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark information and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a simple JavaScript microbenchmark. It defines three test cases:

1. `Math.pow vs Multiplication`
2. `Custom` (a custom implementation)
3. An empty description and no script/preparation code for the first test case, which is likely used as a baseline or control.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case has a unique definition:

1. `Math.pow`: Tests the built-in `Math.pow` function.
2. `Multiplication`: Tests basic multiplication (e.g., `54 * 54`).
3. `Custom`: Provides a custom implementation of exponentiation using a while loop.

**Comparison Options**

The three test cases compare the performance of:

1. Built-in `Math.pow` (test case 1)
2. Basic multiplication (test case 2)
3. Custom implementation of exponentiation (test case 3)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Built-in `Math.pow` (test case 1)**:
	* Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance, especially in edge cases or certain browsers.
2. **Basic Multiplication (test case 2)**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.
	* Cons: Can be slower than the built-in `Math.pow` function, as it requires explicit multiplication operations.
3. **Custom Implementation of Exponentiation (test case 3)**:
	* Pros: Can be optimized for performance, especially with loop unrolling or other optimizations.
	* Cons: Requires manual implementation and may not be as efficient as the built-in `Math.pow` function.

**Library Considerations**

None of the test cases use external libraries. The custom implementation (test case 3) uses a simple while loop to calculate exponentiation, but it does not rely on any additional libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided benchmark definitions. They focus solely on basic arithmetic operations.

**Other Alternatives**

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

* **Use a more efficient algorithm**: For example, using the "exponentiation by squaring" method, which can reduce the number of multiplications required.
* **Optimize for specific browsers or devices**: Use browser-specific APIs or device-related optimizations to improve performance in certain environments.
* **Use a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler**: If you're targeting a JavaScript engine with a JIT compiler, consider using native code generation or other optimizations to improve performance.

Keep in mind that the goal of microbenchmarks like MeasureThat.net is often to identify performance bottlenecks or areas for optimization. The specific approach and optimizations used will depend on the context and requirements of your project.

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/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.pow	6097201.0 Ops/sec
Multiplication	935486272.0 Ops/sec
Custom	138056688.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Math.pow vs Multiplication (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow vs Multiplication vs Custom

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow

Multiplication

Custom

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):