Benchmark: 512x512 canvas get and put only 100x100 pixels

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id='drawcan' width='512' height='512'></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var drawCon = document.getElementById('drawcan').getContext('2d');

Tests:

get and set
var imageData = drawCon.getImageData(0,0,512,512); drawCon.putImageData(imageData,0,0);
get, paint, and set
var imageData = drawCon.getImageData(0,0,512,512); for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { for (var j = 0; j < 100; j++) { imageData[i*512+j] = 0xff00ff; } } drawCon.putImageData(imageData,0,0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
get and set
get, paint, and set

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 what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of getting and setting data on a 512x512 canvas, specifically focusing on only 100x100 pixels. The test cases involve drawing a solid red square (FF00FF) onto the canvas and then reading back the modified pixel values.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Getting data (imageData)**: This involves calling `drawCon.getImageData(0, 0, 512, 512)` to retrieve the image data for the entire canvas.
2. **Painting and setting data (putImageData)**: In this approach, a loop is used to set individual pixels of the 100x100 region by modifying the `imageData` object before calling `drawCon.putImageData(imageData, 0, 0)`.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Getting Data**: This approach is simpler and more straightforward. However, it can lead to slower performance due to:
	* Retrieving the entire image data, which requires copying a large amount of data.
	* The browser's JavaScript engine might cache this data, leading to repeated lookups, which can be slow.
2. **Painting and Setting Data**: This approach is more efficient because it:
	* Only modifies a small region (100x100 pixels) instead of the entire canvas.
	* Allows for better caching and optimization by the browser's JavaScript engine.

However, this approach also has some drawbacks:

* It requires modifying the `imageData` object directly, which can be error-prone if not done correctly.
	* The loop structure might lead to slower performance due to repeated iteration over the pixel values.

**Library:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `<canvas>` element and its associated APIs (such as `getImageData` and `putImageData`) are part of the browser's native API.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax:**

There doesn't seem to be any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being used beyond standard ES5/ES6 features. The use of `var`, `for` loops, and the canvas element's APIs is fairly standard JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you want to explore alternative approaches for benchmarking similar performance-critical code, consider:

1. **WebAssembly (WASM)**: You can write performance-critical code in a language like C or Rust and compile it to WASM, which can then be executed by web browsers.
2. **Native Web Assembly**: Some browsers support native compilation of languages like C++ to WASM, providing even better performance.
3. **Other rendering libraries**: Libraries like Three.js, Pixi.js, or Babylon.js might offer alternative APIs and optimizations for rendering performance-critical code.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more significant changes to your benchmarking approach and may not be as straightforward to implement.

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
get and set	1246.0 Ops/sec
get, paint, and set	808.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

512x512 canvas get and put only 100x100 pixels (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: get and set vs get, paint, and set

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

get and set

get, paint, and set

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):