Benchmark: pow vs multiply v2

Tests:

pow
var size = 256/Math.pow(2,17);
**
var size = 256/(2**17);
loop *
var size = 256; for(let i=0; i<17; i++) { size /= 2; }
Non-integer pow
var size = 256/Math.pow(2,16.5);
Non-integer **
var size = 256/(2**16.5);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pow
**
loop *
Non-integer pow
Non-integer **

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by a single string, which represents a JavaScript expression that calculates the size variable. The expressions are:

1. `var size = 256/Math.pow(2,17);`
2. `var size = 256/(2**17);` (using exponentiation operator **)
3. `var size = 256;\r\nfor(let i=0; i<17; i++) {\r\n\tsize /= 2;\r\n}` (a loop that divides the initial value by 2 for 17 iterations)
4. `var size = 256/Math.pow(2,16.5);` (using non-integer exponentiation with `Math.pow`)
5. `var size = 256/(2**16.5);` (using non-integer exponentiation with `/`)

These expressions are designed to test the performance of different approaches for calculating powers and divisions.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Direct exponentiation**: Using the `Math.pow()` function.
2. **Exponentiation operator (`**`)**: Using the new exponentiation operator introduced in ECMAScript 2016.
3. **Division loop**: Performing multiple divisions by a small value to approximate the result.
4. **Non-integer exponentiation with `Math.pow()`**: Passing non-integer exponents to `Math.pow()`.
5. **Non-integer exponentiation with `/`**: Using the `/` operator for division.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Direct exponentiation (Math.pow())**:
	* Pros: Most accurate, efficient.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the function call overhead.
2. **Exponentiation operator (`**`)**:
	* Pros: More concise, potentially faster.
	* Cons: New syntax, may not be supported in older browsers or environments.
3. **Division loop**:
	* Pros: Simple, easy to understand.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of repeated divisions.
4. **Non-integer exponentiation with `Math.pow()`**:
	* Pros: Can handle non-integer exponents, potentially faster than direct exponentiation.
	* Cons: May produce less accurate results due to rounding errors.
5. **Non-integer exponentiation with `/`**:
	* Pros: Can handle non-integer exponents, potentially more efficient than `Math.pow()` for some cases.
	* Cons: More prone to rounding errors and may not be as accurate.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark expressions use any external libraries. The test cases only rely on built-in JavaScript functions and operators.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in these test cases, such as async/await, promise, or any modern language features.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches for calculating powers and divisions, here are a few options:

1. **Caching**: Implementing caching mechanisms to reduce the number of exponentiations required.
2. **Approximation algorithms**: Using approximation algorithms like Newton's method or binary search to estimate results more efficiently.
3. **GPU acceleration**: Leveraging GPU acceleration to perform calculations in parallel.
4. **Precomputation**: Precomputing intermediate values and storing them in memory to reduce computation overhead.

These alternatives may offer performance improvements, but they also add complexity and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pow	5992294.0 Ops/sec
**	823319552.0 Ops/sec
loop *	45223848.0 Ops/sec
Non-integer pow	5674114.5 Ops/sec
Non-integer **	776649344.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

pow vs multiply v2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: pow vs ** vs loop * vs Non-integer pow vs Non-integer **

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

pow

**

loop *

Non-integer pow

Non-integer **

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):