Benchmark: rand test - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var x = Math.random() * 0xFFFFFF;
var y;

Tests:

bitwise trunc
var y = x >> 0; var y = (y >> 0x10)+','+(y >> 0x08 & 0xFF)+','+(y & 0xFF);
no trunc
var y = (y >> 0x10)+','+(y >> 0x08 & 0xFF)+','+(y & 0xFF);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
bitwise trunc
no trunc

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
bitwise trunc	17623120.0 Ops/sec
no trunc	1416397952.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is in JSON format, which represents two test cases: `bitwise trunc` and `no trunc`. The script preparation code for both test cases is given as:

1. For `bitwise trunc`: `var y = x >> 0; var y = (y >> 0x10)+','+(y >> 0x08 & 0xFF)+','+(y & 0xFF);`
2. For `no trunc`: `var y = (y >> 0x10)+','+(y >> 0x08 & 0xFF)+','+(y & 0xFF);`

Let's analyze the scripts:

**bitwise trunc**

The script first performs a right shift operation on `x` by 0 bits, effectively doing nothing to `x`. Then, it performs three more operations on `y`:
1. Shifts `y` by 0x10 (32) bits and adds a comma.
2. Takes the last 8 bits of `y` (using bitwise AND with 0xFF) and adds a comma.
3. Takes the last byte of `y` (using bitwise AND with 0xFF).

The purpose of this test case is to measure the execution time difference between performing these operations in one step versus breaking them down into separate steps.

**no trunc**

This script performs the same three operations as the previous one, but without the initial right shift operation. The only differences are:
1. No comma is added after shifting `y` by 0x10.
2. The last byte of `y` is taken directly (without using bitwise AND with 0xFF).

The purpose of this test case is to measure the execution time difference between performing these operations in one step versus breaking them down into separate steps.

**Options being compared**

Two approaches are being compared:

1. **Sequential vs. parallelized operations**: The first approach breaks down each operation into separate steps, while the second approach performs all operations in a single step.
2. **Truncation**: In both scripts, truncation is used to get the last byte or bits of `y`. However, in the `bitwise trunc` script, this truncation happens after an initial right shift operation.

**Pros and Cons**

**Sequential vs. parallelized operations**:

* **Pros**:
	+ Easier to understand and analyze individual operations.
	+ May be beneficial for certain types of computations or algorithms that can take advantage of parallelization.
* **Cons**:
	+ May lead to slower execution due to the overhead of branch prediction and function calls.

**Truncation**:

* **Pros**:
	+ Can provide accurate results when working with fixed-point arithmetic or other numerical representations.
* **Cons**:
	+ May introduce precision issues if not handled correctly, especially in cases where floating-point operations are used.

**Library**

The benchmark uses the `>>` operator, which is a right shift operator in JavaScript. This operator shifts the bits of its operand to the right by a specified number of positions.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic arithmetic and bitwise operations. However, it's worth noting that the `>>` operator can be optimized using SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instructions in some browsers, which may affect its performance.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizing these benchmarks further, you could consider:
1. Using a different numerical representation, such as fixed-point arithmetic or a library like [Big.js](https://github.com/MikeMcNeil/big.js).
2. Implementing custom SIMD instructions or using libraries that provide optimized bitwise operations.
3. Analyzing the generated machine code to identify opportunities for optimization.
4. Experimenting with different JavaScript engines or versions to compare performance across different browsers and platforms.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional expertise and resources, so it's essential to carefully evaluate their benefits and feasibility before applying them to your benchmarking work.

Related benchmarks:

rand test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: bitwise trunc vs no trunc

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

bitwise trunc

no trunc

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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