Benchmark: Setting Canvas Pixel

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id="c" width="300" height="300"></canvas>

AخA
 
<canvas id="c" width="300" height="300"></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

$c = document.getElementById('c');
$ctx = $c.getContext('2d');
$ctx.clearRect(0, 0, 800, 300);
$px = $ctx.createImageData(1, 1);
$pxls = [];
for (var i=0; i<10000; ++i) $pxls.push({
   x: Math.random() * 800 << 0,
   y: Math.random() * 300 << 0,
   r: Math.random() * 255 << 0,
   g: Math.random() * 255 << 0,
   b: Math.random() * 255 << 0,
   a: Math.random() * 128 << 0 + 128
});
$i = 0;

 
$c = document.getElementById('c');$ctx = $c.getContext('2d');$ctx.clearRect(0, 0, 800, 300);$px = $ctx.createImageData(1, 1);$pxls = [];for (var i=0; i<10000; ++i) $pxls.push({   x: Math.random() * 800 << 0,   y: Math.random() * 300 << 0,   r: Math.random() * 255 << 0,   g: Math.random() * 255 << 0,   b: Math.random() * 255 << 0,   a: Math.random() * 128 << 0 + 128});$i = 0;

Tests:

fillRect/concat

for (var i=5000;i--;){
var px = $pxls[$i++ % 10000];
$ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(' + px.r + ',' + px.g + ',' + px.b + ',' + (px.a / 255) + ')';
$ctx.fillRect(px.x, px.y, 1, 1);
}

 
for (var i=5000;i--;){var px = $pxls[$i++ % 10000];$ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(' + px.r + ',' + px.g + ',' + px.b + ',' + (px.a / 255) + ')';$ctx.fillRect(px.x, px.y, 1, 1);}

fillRect/join
for (var i=500;i--;){ var px = $pxls[$i++ % 10000]; $ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(' + [px.r,px.g,px.b,px.a/255].join() + ')'; $ctx.fillRect(px.x, px.y, 1, 1); }
for (var i=500;i--;){
var px = $pxls[$i++ % 10000];
$ctx.fillStyle = 'rgba(' + [px.r,px.g,px.b,px.a/255].join() + ')';
$ctx.fillRect(px.x, px.y, 1, 1);
}
1×1 Image Data
for (var i=500;i--;){ var px=$pxls[$i++ % 10000], d=$px.data; d[0] = px.r; d[1] = px.g; d[2] = px.b; d[3] = px.a; $ctx.putImageData($px, px.x, px.y); }
for (var i=500;i--;){
var px=$pxls[$i++ % 10000], d=$px.data;
d[0] = px.r;
d[1] = px.g;
d[2] = px.b;
d[3] = px.a;
$ctx.putImageData($px, px.x, px.y);
}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
fillRect/concat
fillRect/join
1×1 Image Data

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2025 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/64.0.3282.168 Safari/537.36 OPR/51.0.2830.40

Browser/OS: Opera 51 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
fillRect/concat	81.7 Ops/sec
fillRect/join	711.1 Ops/sec
1×1 Image Data	267.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 months ago):

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark.

Benchmark Definition

The benchmark is defined by two pieces of code: Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code. The first one sets up the canvas element, gets its 2D drawing context, clears it, creates an image data object, and populates it with random pixel values. The second one defines the HTML structure for the canvas element.

Options being compared

There are three individual test cases being compared:

fillRect/concat: This option uses a comma-separated string to pass color values to setFillStyle().
fillRect/join: This option uses an array to pass color values to setFillStyle().
1×1 Image Data: This option uses the putImageData() method to fill the canvas with image data.

Pros and Cons of each approach

fillRect/concat:
- Pros: Simple, easy to implement.
- Cons: Might be slower due to string concatenation overhead.
fillRect/join:
- Pros: Faster than concatenating strings, as it avoids unnecessary copies.
- Cons: Requires creating an array and joining its elements, which might incur additional overhead.
1×1 Image Data:
- Pros: Directly operates on the image data buffer, potentially faster.
- Cons: Requires setting up a separate image data object, which can be slower.

Library usage

The benchmark uses the OHRP/51.0.2830.40 browser, which is an older version of Opera. It's likely that this browser has specific optimizations or bugs that affect the performance of these test cases.

JavaScript features and syntax

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in these benchmark definitions. They seem to be standard ECMAScript 5/6 code.

Other alternatives

Other ways to fill a canvas element might include:

Using fillRect() with multiple arguments (e.g., fillRect(x, y, width, height)).
Using a library like CanvasJS or Chart.js for rendering graphics.
Using WebGL or WebAssembly for more complex graphics rendering.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and might not be as straightforward to implement as the benchmark's code.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two pieces of code: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The first one sets up the canvas element, gets its 2D drawing context, clears it, creates an image data object, and populates it with random pixel values. The second one defines the HTML structure for the canvas element.

**Options being compared**

There are three individual test cases being compared:

1. `fillRect/concat`: This option uses a comma-separated string to pass color values to `setFillStyle()`.
2. `fillRect/join`: This option uses an array to pass color values to `setFillStyle()`.
3. `1×1 Image Data`: This option uses the `putImageData()` method to fill the canvas with image data.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* `fillRect/concat`:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to implement.
	+ Cons: Might be slower due to string concatenation overhead.
* `fillRect/join`:
	+ Pros: Faster than concatenating strings, as it avoids unnecessary copies.
	+ Cons: Requires creating an array and joining its elements, which might incur additional overhead.
* `1×1 Image Data`:
	+ Pros: Directly operates on the image data buffer, potentially faster.
	+ Cons: Requires setting up a separate image data object, which can be slower.

**Library usage**

The benchmark uses the `OHRP/51.0.2830.40` browser, which is an older version of Opera. It's likely that this browser has specific optimizations or bugs that affect the performance of these test cases.

**JavaScript features and syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in these benchmark definitions. They seem to be standard ECMAScript 5/6 code.

**Other alternatives**

Other ways to fill a canvas element might include:

* Using `fillRect()` with multiple arguments (e.g., `fillRect(x, y, width, height)`).
* Using a library like CanvasJS or Chart.js for rendering graphics.
* Using WebGL or WebAssembly for more complex graphics rendering.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and might not be as straightforward to implement as the benchmark's code.

Related benchmarks:

Setting Canvas Pixel (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fillRect/concat vs fillRect/join vs 1×1 Image Data

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result